Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[LondonJohn]

How can I take people claiming to be expert engineers and shipbuilders seriously when they come out with claims such as 'The Herald of Free Enterprise sank faster than the Estonia, dishonestly pretending the two incidents are like for like.

This informs me I would be wasting my time bothering to 'do the calculations' for you are determined to refuse to be honest about it.

You mean to say you still don't (or perhaps won't...) understand that the HOFE sank more quickly than the Estonia*?


* and that the basic mechanism in both disasters was exactly the same: water pouring into the vehicle deck through the bow (owing to a mechanical failure which resulted in an opening of the bow door), causing the ship to lose so much buoyancy and stability that it capsized and sank.

 

[Axxman300]

Another theory recently put forward is that on board there was an American contingent which has been kept secret.

Well there were about 70 members of Stockholm police on board the Estonia coming back from a conference in Tallinn. Hmmm.


Reminds me of the missing flight MH 370 rumours.

Yes, because we Americans are legendary for our secret contingents.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because one of them was a ferry that capsized and sank as a result of water coming in through the bow doors, and the other was the HOFE.

No, silly! It's because one of them was a ferry that capsized and sank as a result of water coming in through the bow doors, and the other was the Estonia.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a new video on youtube of the Wilhelm Gustloff Real Time Sinking. Given it is 'real time' it lasts less than an hour.



It is relevant as I believe it shows remarkable similarities to the Estonia sinking insofar it has the Russian hallmark fingerprints all over it.

Ah, so you're not "just posting current affairs articles" are you, Vixen?

You're actually promoting a (conspiracy) theory that the Estonia sinking "had the Russian hallmark fingerprints all over it".

Just so we can all understand your position, and your dishonesty in pretending to be nothing but a neutral messenger, y'know.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

PS Regarding the video of the Wilhelm Gustloff, it mentions that in 1939-1940 it was a hospital ship and speculates that if it had still been one, or rather had still been painted as one, it might not have been attacked. It doesn't mention that 1,000+ of its passengers were military thus negating any treaty protection it might have had. Horrible business of course but not a war crime.

 

[Kid Eager]

This is a new video on youtube of the Wilhelm Gustloff Real Time Sinking. Given it is 'real time' it lasts less than an hour.



It is relevant as I believe it shows remarkable similarities to the Estonia sinking insofar it has the Russian hallmark fingerprints all over it.

You "believe"? Hang on a minute - aren't you the impartial reporter of current events?

Stay in character, dammit! You're spoiing the play.

 

[Myriad]

Truth is, I don't really care, when it is something so elementary and basic, that you can easily look up for yourself.

Being wrong about something elementary and basic matters more than being wrong about something advanced or subtle. You should care.

Since you describe the rowboat scenario as elementary and basic, I must conclude that there are no significant complicating factors that could get in the way of my test being decisive. For instance, it cannot matter how slowly or quickly I introduce the flow of water, nor how steadily (which is fortunate because I'll have to interrupt water inflow with pauses to refill my bucket), nor to what part of the vessel I direct the flow of water. (But to maximize the chance of it flipping over, I'll direct all the flow approximately amidships, closer to whichever beam end is lower in the water.)

Since I won't be able to do the test until at least a few days from now, let's talk about your understanding of matters related to Archimedes' Principle. If a completely enclosed (water-tight) rigid object is floating in water with its center of mass well above its center of buoyancy, and its buoyancy is greater in magnitude than its weight (so it will not sink), what will happen?

 

[Vixen]

Being wrong about something elementary and basic matters more than being wrong about something advanced or subtle. You should care.

Since you describe the rowboat scenario as elementary and basic, I must conclude that there are no significant complicating factors that could get in the way of my test being decisive. For instance, it cannot matter how slowly or quickly I introduce the flow of water, nor how steadily (which is fortunate because I'll have to interrupt water inflow with pauses to refill my bucket), nor to what part of the vessel I direct the flow of water. (But to maximize the chance of it flipping over, I'll direct all the flow approximately amidships, closer to whichever beam end is lower in the water.)

Since I won't be able to do the test until at least a few days from now, let's talk about your understanding of matters related to Archimedes' Principle. If a completely enclosed (water-tight) rigid object is floating in water with its center of mass well above its center of buoyancy, and its buoyancy is greater in magnitude than its weight (so it will not sink), what will happen?

It floats because:

The buoyant force, equal to weight of displaced water, is in equilibrium with the object's weight.

The density of the object is less than the density of water.

 

[LondonJohn]

It floats because:

The buoyant force, equal to weight of displaced water, is in equilibrium with the object's weight.

The density of the object is less than the density of water.

That wasn't the question (but your c&p from an online article on Archimedes' Principle is well noted).

Maybe read the question again. And keep the word "capsize" in your mind while you do so....

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That wasn't the question ...

Oh, I dunno. If you can't answer "...it will not sink, what will happen?" with "It will float" then I just don't know what the world is coming to.

 

[GlennB]

That wasn't the question ...

I was going to type something similar, but didn't bother. Vixen's reaction is all too predictable.

 

[JayUtah]

The buoyant force, equal to weight of displaced water, is in equilibrium with the object's weight.

Right, that's buoyancy. If you understand what you've copy-pasted, then it's fair to say you understand why ships sink. But the question at hand is your claim that a ship will inevitably "turn turtle." You cite one ship that did that and floated for a while, and you assume this is what should have happened to Estonia. You need to justify your claim that a ship that loses buoyancy will also inevitably capsize.

Ship stability in the roll axis has absolutely nothing to do with Archimedes' Law or the density of the object. Nothing whatsoever. So when people ask you about the capsizing part of your claim, and you keep pointing them to explanations of buoyancy, it's readily apparent that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to stability. What makes a ship capsize, Vixen? It's not Archimedes' Law. Buoyancy is a one-dimensional problem. Stability is a three-dimensional problem, or two if we restrict it to just the roll axis. Capsizing requires an unopposed roll moment. Where does that moment come from? Show us the math that has the center of gravity "become less than zero," if you can. Time to rev up those "five years of physics" and put us all in our place. Or alternatively you can be honest and admit you're not capable of supporting the claim.

You're reluctant to reveal your source because you know we know it's Anders Björkmann, who has been discredited in his field and, more to the point, is simply and demonstrably wrong on this point. You're not willing to reveal your source because you know it lacks authority. You aren't willing to participate in a practical experiment to prove your point because you don't want to deal with the consequences should it fail. And you aren't willing to discuss the stability matter theoretically because its clear you lack the requisite knowledge. So you resorted to excusing yourself from any sort of proof because you think your critics are "dishonest." And why are they dishonest, according to you? Because they don't accept your other uninformed, blustery claims!

Please tell us again how you're just here to report the news.

 

[Myriad]

It floats because:

The buoyant force, equal to weight of displaced water, is in equilibrium with the object's weight.

The density of the object is less than the density of water.

Yes, that's why I said "it will not sink." But what about the center of mass being above the center of buoyancy? What is the significance of that?

 

[Vixen]

Right, that's buoyancy. If you understand what you've copy-pasted, then it's fair to say you understand why ships sink. But the question at hand is your claim that a ship will inevitably "turn turtle." You cite one ship that did that and floated for a while, and you assume this is what should have happened to Estonia. You need to justify your claim that a ship that loses buoyancy will also inevitably capsize.

Ship stability in the roll axis has absolutely nothing to do with Archimedes' Law or the density of the object. Nothing whatsoever. So when people ask you about the capsizing part of your claim, and you keep pointing them to explanations of buoyancy, it's readily apparent that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to stability. What makes a ship capsize, Vixen? It's not Archimedes' Law. Buoyancy is a one-dimensional problem. Stability is a three-dimensional problem, or two if we restrict it to just the roll axis. Capsizing requires an unopposed roll moment. Where does that moment come from? Show us the math that has the center of gravity "become less than zero," if you can. Time to rev up those "five years of physics" and put us all in our place. Or alternatively you can be honest and admit you're not capable of supporting the claim.

You're reluctant to reveal your source because you know we know it's Anders Björkmann, who has been discredited in his field and, more to the point, is simply and demonstrably wrong on this point. You're not willing to reveal your source because you know it lacks authority. You aren't willing to participate in a practical experiment to prove your point because you don't want to deal with the consequences should it fail. And you aren't willing to discuss the stability matter theoretically because its clear you lack the requisite knowledge. So you resorted to excusing yourself from any sort of proof because you think your critics are "dishonest." And why are they dishonest, according to you? Because they don't accept your other uninformed, blustery claims!

Please tell us again how you're just here to report the news.

No, I said the opposite. I said if a ship retains buoyancy it will float.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, that's why I said "it will not sink." But what about the center of mass being above the center of buoyancy? What is the significance of that?

Surely that is not beyond your ken?

 

[JayUtah]

No, I said the opposite. I said if a ship retains buoyancy it will float.

And once again you evade the roll stability question. What makes a ship capsize, Vixen?

Here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13630874#post13630874 you say

...at which point it should have turned belly up, just like the MS Jan Heweliusz but it sank to the bottom of the sea instead, in record time.

And here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13629900#post13629900 you say

We were talking about capsizing right, when the trim (centre of gravity) is displaced (listing). When a vessel lists at 90° it capsizes belly up. If it has a superstructure such as a liner or cruiser, then the amount of time it takes water to displace the air guides you as to how long before it sinks.

Of course, if you cynically believe that artificially pouring water into it to the brim or adding 40K or iron ore, as someone claiming to be an expert suggested, you are merely cheating instead of truthfully acknowledging the case.

When challenged about your sources, you said http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13630825#post13630825

No I haven't been reading that reference. Björkman doesn't agree with the German Group of Experts or the Estonians and believes Linde's fairy stories. Having said that, his diagrams of elementary physics principles are sound, as he is a qualified naval architect who ran his own ferry company, after all.

I am capable of thinking for myself, thank you.

You vouch for Björkman's physics, but you can't demonstrate that you understand them yourself. We already went through his fall from grace. The reason he ran his own company -- which consisted entirely and only of him -- is because he got drummed out of the profession. No one would hire him, so he went into business for himself.

In any case, what we're asking you to do is think for yourself. It appears you really aren't as capable of doing that as it seems.

 

[JayUtah]

Surely that is not beyond your ken?

He's not asking you so that you can educate him on a matter he's unclear about. He's asking to make you demonstrate that you know what you claim you know, such that your "Because I say so" arguments have some evidentiary weight.

 

[Vixen]

And once again you evade the roll stability question. What makes a ship capsize, Vixen?

Here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13630874#post13630874 you say

​

And here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13629900#post13629900 you say

​

When challenged about your sources, you said http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13630825#post13630825

​

You vouch for Björkman's physics, but you can't demonstrate that you understand them yourself. We already went through his fall from grace. The reason he ran his own company -- which consisted entirely and only of him -- is because he got drummed out of the profession. No one would hire him, so he went into business for himself.

In any case, what we're asking you to do is think for yourself. It appears you really aren't as capable of doing that as it seems.

Lack of stability.

**** Anders Björkman.

 

[JayUtah]

Lack of stability.

**** Anders Björkman.

So when asked to think for yourself, you simply cite your discredited source once again and wash your hands of it? Is that what's happening here?

You're being asked questions to test your knowledge, Vixen. What does "lack of stability" look like in terms of center of gravity and center of buoyancy? What defines where those points are? What -- as you claim -- makes "center of gravity less than zero?" What forces act effectively at those points? How are they defined? What dictates the magnitudes of those forces? How do the points and forces combine to create (or deny) stability? What factors of a sinking ship affect all those physical parameters?

C'mon, Vixen. Now's your chance to shine. Show us that those "five years of physics" weren't wasted.

 

[bknight]

Lack of stability.

**** Anders Björkman.

Every time I see this name attached to any analyses, I shudder. Not reading his version of the accident in mind, If one considers his "unengineering" version of Apollo going to the Moon, then one must take with a large dose of salt any interpretation of this sinking.