Continuation The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is generally accepted that a list of more than 60º degrees will cause a cruise ship to capsize completely...

No.

Its like deja vu... all over again. I'll just leave this picture here.

https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bos...XDS2QNFIZM.jpg

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No. When a ship or any item is submerged beneath water the laws of gravity do not remain the same (buoyancy)

Haha. No. The laws of gravity are the same under the sea as they are above the sea. As they are the same on the moon, or on the top of Mount Everest, or at the bottom of the ocean, or in deep space.

You fail basic physics.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

Haha. No. The laws of gravity are the same under the sea as they are above the sea. As they are the same on the moon, or on the top of Mount Everest, or at the bottom of the ocean, or in deep space.

You fail basic physics.

Oh my. Vixen actuallly wrote that, didn't she! I never before realized that ships float because of different effects of gravity. Naval architecture musr be a world unto itself.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Steve

Oh my. Vixen actuallly wrote that, didn't she! I never before realized that ships float because of different effects of gravity. Naval architecture musr be a world unto itself.

A universe unto itself indeed if it has different Physical Constants.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No. When a ship or any item is submerged beneath water the laws of gravity do not remain the same (buoyancy) and nor do doors swing open and shut, due to water pressure. So imagine a surge of seawater enters the car deck. How then would the open car ramp now swing shut 'a few times'?

I could be wrong, but with my simple background in marine geology, buoyancy is about floating, or the inability to float, and or sinking. Either way, gravity is main feature. I point to the fact that, as of yet, no ship has ever floated into the sky, and drifted out of the atmosphere after taking on water.

I'm not an engineer or a physicist, so I can't address the many factors of ship-design, and the sinking thereof. But I can tell you about what happens at the bottom of the ocean. Rock formations undergo erosion undersea the way they do in mountains and deserts. While the process is different, subject to water-flow from deep sea currents, normal, and storm-driven. The results are similar. When a large foreign object from the surface is introduced into a deep sea (benthic) environment, this object is subjected to those deep sea forces.

The Estonia isn't in deep water, which means it's subject to a variety of currents. These have been logged, thanks to the latest investigation where they planted sensors to chart current flow, speed, direction, and duration (really cool marine science). Since the wreck has not been monitored regularly no one can say for certain what has gone on with the bow ramp over the years, but it is wide open now. The ship is slowly rolling as it has come to rest at the edge of a steep slope, crested with a rocky outcrop. This rolling is what caused the hull plates to split open, The rolling is caused by a combination of currents, structural failure from rust and water pressure, and...*drum roll*...gravity.

*I apologize about the 45-degree thing. Should be 90.*

Either way, the issue is closed, Estonia sank from heavy seas it was never designed to sail through in the first place. And with the new evidence pointing to design flaws, the ship should not have put to sea at all in that weather.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

Haha. No. The laws of gravity are the same under the sea as they are above the sea. As they are the same on the moon, or on the top of Mount Everest, or at the bottom of the ocean, or in deep space.

You fail basic physics.

Scotty: "Ye cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n!"
Kirk: "Take her underwater, Scotty."
Scotty: *slaps forehead* "Och aye! Of course! Brilliant, Cap'n! Takin' her under water!"

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Steve

Oh my. Vixen actuallly wrote that, didn't she!

Yes. Yes, she did. Her abject ignorance of physics in this thread is the stuff of legend, despite her claim that she can somehow know that the crackpot Anders Björkman is correct on the subject of ship stability and therefore we should all take him seriously.

On that subject, she found a YouTube video that discusses how schooner-type hulls right themselves after heeling—up to a certain angle (i.e., the G-Z method of establishing metacentric height, an important parameter in transverse stability). But when she tried to restate that model in her own words, she hopelessly confused basic concepts like lines and points. It was pure, amusing gibberish. The model is correct and useful, but Vixen doesn't understand a word of it.

And that model has two important limitations. First, it's intended for an "intact hull," meaning that neither the center of gravity reckoning or the center of buoyancy reckoning in that model accounts for flooding, which—when it occurs—changes both. When asked whether she could adapt the model to including flooding, she was silent. It can be adapted, but she can't do it. And until she can, the model doesn't apply to MS Estonia.

The reason it's useful is that schooners (or rather, ships with sails) must be handled with very careful attention paid to roll moments induced by such things as heeling under "by" points of sail, as opposed to "large" points of sail that tend to induce pitch moments instead. For powered vessels, metacentric height is considered mostly in the case of turn radius for a given speed. It's not as important as for sail, and it's mostly irrelevant when a ship is listing because it is flooding.

Second, most powered vessels have vastly different hull cross-sections than a schooner. As such, they have more than two nodes of stability. Björkman (and, consequently, Vixen) wrongly applies the G-Z model, and as such comes up with only two stable nodes: righted and turtled. Many modern squarish hull designs have another node of stability on their beam ends, such as with the Herald of Free Enterprise, which floated stably on her beam ends before settling to the bottom on her side. I asked Vixen if she could compute whether Estonia had such a stable node. Again she was silent.

No, the "laws of gravity" do not change underwater. Yes, the final dynamic state of an object is a combination of gravity and the effects of any fluids that may also be present, such as air or water. But gravity doesn't behave any different simply because we're now underwater. The law of gravity is in full force.

No, Vixen, you don't know what you're talking about, as usual. And as usual, you're trying to teach from a position of abject, fully-evidenced ignorance. Just stop.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

Haha. No. The laws of gravity are the same under the sea as they are above the sea. As they are the same on the moon, or on the top of Mount Everest, or at the bottom of the ocean, or in deep space.

You fail basic physics.

Indeed close to my exact thoughts when I read that post. Particularly when the buoyancy of any object is directly proportional to the acceleration of gravity (as well as the volume of the medium displaced, and that medium's density).

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

When a ship or any item is submerged beneath water the laws of gravity do not remain the same

Here comes the physics masterclass once again......


(ETA: should've realised I'd be ninja'd comprehensively on this one!)

[Steve]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Here comes the physics masterclass once again......

I expect a day or two of silence followed by "It was a joke, people!"

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

A universe unto itself indeed if it has different Physical Constants.

A universe divided* against itself cannot stand.


* Natural laws vs Vixen's laws

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Its like deja vu... all over again...

...The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before...

[GlennB]

It will really kick off in °" time.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by GlennB

It will really kick off in °" time.

You are awful... but I like you.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by GlennB

You are very brave.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

The question "why?" springs to mind.

Or dumb. Sorry. I ought to have kept 'shut up'.

PS It was sunk by a reopened can of worms.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by The Common Potato

Or dumb. Sorry. I ought to have kept 'shut up'.

PS It was sunk by a reopened can of worms.

Shot from a submarine with tank tracks.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

A universe divided* against itself cannot stand.

* Natural laws vs Vixen's laws

Perhaps the laws of nature work differently in the quaint little village where she went to school. Everyone there knew that.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

No.

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

real-world experience and naval architecture show that a cruise ship can roll to almost 60-degrees before it’s in danger of capsizing, and can ride out 50-foot seas without danger of sinking.

cruise arabia com

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

I could be wrong, but with my simple background in marine geology, buoyancy is about floating, or the inability to float, and or sinking. Either way, gravity is main feature. I point to the fact that, as of yet, no ship has ever floated into the sky, and drifted out of the atmosphere after taking on water.

I'm not an engineer or a physicist, so I can't address the many factors of ship-design, and the sinking thereof. But I can tell you about what happens at the bottom of the ocean. Rock formations undergo erosion undersea the way they do in mountains and deserts. While the process is different, subject to water-flow from deep sea currents, normal, and storm-driven. The results are similar. When a large foreign object from the surface is introduced into a deep sea (benthic) environment, this object is subjected to those deep sea forces.

The Estonia isn't in deep water, which means it's subject to a variety of currents. These have been logged, thanks to the latest investigation where they planted sensors to chart current flow, speed, direction, and duration (really cool marine science). Since the wreck has not been monitored regularly no one can say for certain what has gone on with the bow ramp over the years, but it is wide open now. The ship is slowly rolling as it has come to rest at the edge of a steep slope, crested with a rocky outcrop. This rolling is what caused the hull plates to split open, The rolling is caused by a combination of currents, structural failure from rust and water pressure, and...*drum roll*...gravity.

*I apologize about the 45-degree thing. Should be 90.*

Either way, the issue is closed, Estonia sank from heavy seas it was never designed to sail through in the first place. And with the new evidence pointing to design flaws, the ship should not have put to sea at all in that weather.

You would be factually wrong. The issue is not closed as the Swedish government is investing in salvaging the car ramp door.

Compare and contrast with the 'facts' surrounding the Titanic. Most people believed it was an established fact that the Titanic hit an iceberg. The thinking person knew all along that this theory was just someone's 'best guess'. This is the difference between true sceptics and those who accept unproven theories at face value. Which camp do you fall into?

Now that there has been an extremely detailed three-dimensional imaging of the wreck hitherto not technically possible, we can now say it is an established fact it hit an iceberg, although this is not 100% definitive.

Quote:

But the new images confirm that the Titanic has clearly hit an iceberg and then went down into the ocean. However, it may not have hit the ship’s starboard, as shown in the Leonardo DiCaprio movie.

Spieltimes

Is the issue of the Estonia closed as you claim?

Quote:

Estonia's bow visor was already salvaged in 1994, not long after the disaster occurred. But the bow ramp, which was behind the visor, remains at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

Discussions have been held as to whether the bow ramp should also be salvaged as it is considered an important piece of the puzzle in the sequence of events in the sinking. And now the government has added 25 million kroner following a request from the National Accident Commission to carry out the work.

Damage to the ramp
The dives are being procured, says Jonas Bäckstrand, and the idea is that they will take place during the early summer.

There is some damage to the ramp that they want to examine, among other things they have been able to see marks in the ramp in the shape of a triangle in photographs that correspond well with how it hit the front car deck.

aftonbladet

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by MBDK

Indeed close to my exact thoughts when I read that post. Particularly when the buoyancy of any object is directly proportional to the acceleration of gravity (as well as the volume of the medium displaced, and that medium's density).

It is your prerogative to believe that the car deck door/ramp swung open and shut like a barn door on a windy day whilst it sank. Perhaps ask yourself this question. How come people who accidently drive into a river or get swept away by sudden floods - as happens in US hurricanes or Japanese tsunamis - don't just simply open their car door and escape?

I'll leave it to you to find your own answer.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Are you sure about that?

cruise arabia com

Wow, so top heavy and bottom heavy make no difference, like sail ships VS powered ships? You think a resort hotel well above the waterline is like a parking garage at or below the waterline? Please, just stop or at least try harder, to learn something.

[Mojo]

These two statements are not the same:*

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is generally accepted that a list of more than 60º degrees will cause a cruise ship to capsize completely...

Originally Posted by Vixen

Quote:

real-world experience and naval architecture show that a cruise ship can roll to almost 60-degrees before it’s in danger of capsizing, and can ride out 50-foot seas without danger of sinking.

cruise arabia com

*Even when disregarding the incorrect notation in the first one.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is your prerogative to believe that the car deck door/ramp swung open and shut like a barn door on a windy day whilst it sank. Perhaps ask yourself this question. How come people who accidently drive into a river or get swept away by sudden floods - as happens in US hurricanes or Japanese tsunamis - don't just simply open their car door and escape?

I'll leave it to you to find your own answer.

Well, most people aren't driving their cars sideways a long ways across waters where the forces of just that could collapse said door, not intended to be exposed thusly because there was a bow at one time, internally. Heck, why even need the bow door if the car ramp could endure the pounding seas?


I'll leave it to you figure out how your analogy just sucks.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Is the issue of the Estonia closed as you claim?

Quote:

Estonia's bow visor was already salvaged in 1994, not long after the disaster occurred. But the bow ramp, which was behind the visor, remains at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

Discussions have been held as to whether the bow ramp should also be salvaged as it is considered an important piece of the puzzle in the sequence of events in the sinking. And now the government has added 25 million kroner following a request from the National Accident Commission to carry out the work.

Damage to the ramp
The dives are being procured, says Jonas Bäckstrand, and the idea is that they will take place during the early summer.

There is some damage to the ramp that they want to examine, among other things they have been able to see marks in the ramp in the shape of a triangle in photographs that correspond well with how it hit the front car deck.

aftonbladet

Now, one might wonder why you stopped quoting the article at exactly that point.

Lets also include the next couple of sentence in the same article, still quotes from Jonas Bäckstrand - the chair of the investigation.

Originally Posted by Aftonbladet

– Det stärker hypotesen om hur förlisningen gått till. Sedan har den i övrigt slitits loss från sina förankringar, säger Bäckstrand.

Man har även kunnat se skador på låsanordningar till rampen. Rampen ligger lös vilket gör att den också är förhållandevis enkel att bärga.

Syftet med att ta upp den på land är att få en bättre överblick samt möjlighet att filma den del av skrovet som rampen nu täcker.

Det finns ingen anledning att tro att bärgningen skulle ge haverikommissionen en annan bild av händelseförloppet än den man tidigare slagit fast, enligt Bäckstrand. MS Estonia var inte sjövärdig, enligt en analys från haverikommissionerna i Sverige och Estland av faktauppgifter som finns i 1997 års JAIC-rapport.

My translation:

Quote:

- It strengthens the hypothesis about how the sinking happened. Since then, it has also been torn free from where it was attached, says Bäckstrand.

It has also been possible to see damages to the locking devices for the ramp. The ramp is loose, which means that it is also relatively easy to salvage.

The purpose of taking it up on land is to get a better overview and the opportunity to film the part of the hull that the ramp now covers.

There is no reason to believe that the salvage would give the accident commission a different picture of the course of events than the one previously established, according to Bäckstrand. MS Estonia was not seaworthy, according to an analysis by the accident commissions in Sweden and Estonia of facts contained in the 1997 JAIC report.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is generally accepted that a list of more than 60º degrees will cause a cruise ship to capsize completely, so it is unlikely to have happened at 90 degrees when capsize was certain

No. I reject your made up rule. Do you remember admonishing us to respect what the survivors described?

Quote:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...93d220cd_z.jpg



The two Estonians at the car ramp



As you can see, the car ramp door would need to be reasonably shut for it to be accessible to someone climbing down it.

As you can see, a list just past 90° would cause gravity to pull the unrestrained ramp closed.

Gravity would also operate 80 to 90 metres down on the sea bed. With the wreck lying on its side at an angle beyond 90 degrees the ramp would naturally hang in a closed position. Or "firmly" closed as you put it for some reason.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

No. I reject your made up rule. Do you remember admonishing us to respect what the survivors described?



As you can see, a list just past 90° would cause gravity to pull the unrestrained ramp closed.

Gravity would also operate 80 to 90 metres down on the sea bed. With the wreck lying on its side at an angle beyond 90 degrees the ramp would naturally hang in a closed position. Or "firmly" closed as you put it for some reason.

What about negative gravity?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Now, one might wonder why you stopped quoting the article at exactly that point.

Lets also include the next couple of sentence in the same article, still quotes from Jonas Bäckstrand - the chair of the investigation.



My translation:

That is because it is against the rules to quote more than a couple of paragraphs.

Facts are all. It is good the ramp door is being salvaged.

[Vixen]

Weird beliefs of the general public


• When a vessel capsizes, it floats around on its side.

• A strong wave can cause a reinforced steel bow visor to just simply fall off.

• The bow visor falling off meant that the cast iron door of the car deck also opened.

• This opening was enough to cause instant flooding of the car deck and the ship to sink within thirty-five minutes.

• Notwithstanding the car deck ramp-style door opening to let in a huge torrent of water, it then shut all by itself, sufficiently enough to enable two Estonian athletes to climb down it. ‘I can’t see any contradiction here!’

• The ship capsized because the car deck was full of water yet at the same time the car ramp door was still shut whilst at 70 degrees list. ‘The water must have entered by osmosis.’

• Capsize being certain by laws of buoyancy, the Estonia didn’t capsize but sank immediately, stern first, to land on its side; ‘This is quite normal. I’ve never heard of a vessel turtling – it doesn’t happen! The Captain of the Commander Ship in Charge HM Silja doesn’t know what he is talking about when he said he was expecting to see the ship floating upside down’.

• The list, at 45 degrees, was enough for water to flood in via the car deck, and at the same time, smash all of the windows on the higher decks and enter the electrics and ventilators via the central corridor, as the seawater also managed to smash down the sealed locked car deck doors. ‘Who cares if Kurm’s photography tells a different story of these doors still being firmly shut!’

• The car ramp door, having swung open after the bow visor was hit by a wave, miraculously - at 70 degrees list - was again shut to enable two survivors to climb down it. ‘The door swung open and shut, there was no water pressure, but…erm…er…gravity… that is why.’

• The cast iron reinforced car ramp, once submerged, had the amazing ability to carry on swinging open and shut like a barn door in a gale.

• A passenger cruise ferry has little to no natural buoyancy, so of course, a little splash of water on an upper deck will cause it to immediately sink.

• A passenger ship with water entering the car deck above water level will suffer exactly the same fate as a ship struck by three torpedoes from a submarine and sink as quickly, just like MV Wilhelm Gustloff in WWII!

• You are not allowed to use primes to indicate time because ‘I just looked up Grammarly so there’.

• ‘Merriam-Webster says US rules of notation override British ones.’

• KANNAD406 Epirbs auto-activated ‘have to be switched on by the crew when the ship starts sinking’.

• If you jump into a swimming pool or other body of water in your normal clothes, you will immediately sink because clothes make you ultra-heavy. ‘Oh dear, I had no idea that clothes in water have no particular weight, actually! I must start a thread ridiculing this fact’.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by junkshop

You are awful... but I like you.

Hah! I was an estate agent for about a year in Weybridge, in the mid-1980s. Never managed to sell a property. I'm officially the World's Worst Estate Agent. One property I also didn't sell was Dick Emery's widow's. St George's Hill.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Are you sure about that?

cruise arabia com

Wow. You found a non-technical article which aims to reassure potential cruise passengers that modern cruise ships, despite looking so tall they can't be stable, are not unsafe compared to older ocean liners. And you took its remark that these cruise ships can roll "to almost 60 degrees without risk of capsizing" as being a general rule for all ships, that rolling beyond a critical 60 degrees a ship will not stop but continue to roll over.

I not only reject your made up rule, I grab it firmly by the lapels so I can more emphatically laugh right in its stupid face.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Weird beliefs of the general public

<strawman garbage snipped for brevity>

This gish gallop of twisted non-facts fails to support your case due to its high error content.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is your prerogative to believe that the car deck door/ramp swung open and shut like a barn door on a windy day whilst it sank. Perhaps ask yourself this question. How come people who accidently drive into a river or get swept away by sudden floods - as happens in US hurricanes or Japanese tsunamis - don't just simply open their car door and escape?

I'll leave it to you to find your own answer.

Odd. But odd is getting to be the norm with you. What in particular is odd regarding your post? Throughout ALL the pages and posts in this thread, I have never stated any position regarding the actual events that occurred when the Estonia sank, let alone indicated any belief one way or the other regarding the car door/ramp. In my last post, I merely agreed with the assessment that you are notoriously poor at your understanding of basic physics, and provided a terse factual elaboration as to why your quip regarding gravity is fundamentally incorrect. Why you chose to Straw Man my post in such an irrelevant manner as you did should concern you.

[The Common Potato]

A damaged and 'trying to capsize' ship will float when in equilibrium, bouancy-wise. The air - which will bubble through the water above it - will be trapped at some stage - if the vessel is to remain 'not sunk'. It may totally turn-turtle - or it may not.

[The Common Potato]

I know who did it: https://youtu.be/tDBG1Jh1Eow?t=102

PS All of it: https://youtu.be/tDBG1Jh1Eow

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by MBDK

Odd. But odd is getting to be the norm with you. What in particular is odd regarding your post? Throughout ALL the pages and posts in this thread, I have never stated any position regarding the actual events that occurred when the Estonia sank, let alone indicated any belief one way or the other regarding the car door/ramp. In my last post, I merely agreed with the assessment that you are notoriously poor at your understanding of basic physics, and provided a terse factual elaboration as to why your quip regarding gravity is fundamentally incorrect. Why you chose to Straw Man my post in such an irrelevant manner as you did should concern you.

Do you not think it 'odd' that for someone who professes to be somewhat of a boffin that you should have raced to back up a poster who claimed that the cast iron ramp would have swung open and shut whilst sinking or sunk*? I would have thought objectivity should be sovereign for someone claiming to be a boff.

*The most likely reason the ramp door is now fully off is because early exploration underwater by various different groups over time wrenched the thing open, rather than banging open and shut of its own accord.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Common Potato

I know who did it: https://youtu.be/tDBG1Jh1Eow?t=102

PS All of it: https://youtu.be/tDBG1Jh1Eow

Thanks, I was a big fan of Donovan once (yes, yes, I know he's supposed to be the 'poor man's Bob Dylan'...).

[Jack by the hedge]

When the ramp is recovered, one thing it will be possible to establish without doubt is that the ramp is not a piece of cast iron.

I mean it's already perfectly obvious that like the rest of the ship it will be made of rolled steel plate, cut and welded. But since the "cast iron ramp" seems to be a theme for today's cavalcade of wrongness, it's bugged me enough to comment.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

the ramp is recovered

The Ramp, is Recovered. Huh!

Makes as much sense as anything else.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Thanks, I was a big fan of Donovan once (yes, yes, I know he's supposed to be the 'poor man's Bob Dylan'...).

ARrrrrrrrrrrggggh.

[The Common Potato]

https://youtu.be/u0U-2N3SqyA?t=8 :-) ? Not in Finland, Vixen?