• 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 Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
They make no difference as there are lots of other openings to the hull.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are several other routes water could have taken off the car deck and deeper into the ship but if, as seems very likely to me, the only two doors which were accessible for inspection are on the side of the wreck which lies uppermost then they'd be entirely irrelevant to the sinking anyway.
 
LondonJohn said:
Did I miss the part where Vixen addresses this matter?
Click to expand...

Her posts #3506, #3507, #3509 double down on the, "I'm right because of simple physics," claims without providing any details, and certainly without providing the vector sums. She alluded to "displac[ing]... the centre of mass" as the cause for a ship to roll, but she didn't explain how this (supposedly necessarily) arises from a displacement of air with water. You can see above where I respond to her continued handwaving in more detail.
 
Myriad said:
No. I'd rather not argue about predictions based on "principles" when I have everything I need to try it out for myself.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I suspect she's pursuing this line of argument because the "principles" she's alluding to are those put forward by Anders Björkmann. She's learned that citing him as an authority will result in derisive laughter from those of us who know him better than she. But she doesn't have the wherewithal to explain and defend those "principles" herself. So all that's left is bluster, which tends to cave in fairly quickly in the face of practical demonstrations.

Awaiting your instructions for how to introduce the water in an appropriately unbalanced way...
Click to expand...

Four or five tequila shots should do the trick.
 
Myriad said:
No. I'd rather not argue about predictions based on "principles" when I have everything I need to try it out for myself.

Awaiting your instructions for how to introduce the water in an appropriately unbalanced way, for your clearly stated prediction of the results based on the principles you describe, and of course your wager.
Click to expand...

Me too. I have a sea (the kitchen sink) and a boat (a plastic food tub). I just want to know how to let water into the boat so that it rolls 180 and remains floating upside-down.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. They. Don't. Always. Do. That.



I honestly haven't the foggiest clue why you are even making this baseless claim AGAIN, except maybe it's something you thought before and as always you won't admit to making a mistake. What difference does it make if the Estonia went down on her side vs upside down with respect to if she was deliberately sunk or not???
 
lobosrul5 said:
No. They. Don't. Always. Do. That.



I honestly haven't the foggiest clue why you are even making this baseless claim AGAIN, except maybe it's something you thought before and as always you won't admit to making a mistake. What difference does it make if the Estonia went down on her side vs upside down with respect to if she was deliberately sunk or not???
Click to expand...


I can only assume it’s something to do with this being the nautical equivalent of a “controlled demolition”.
 
lobosrul5 said:
No. They. Don't. Always. Do. That.



I honestly haven't the foggiest clue why you are even making this baseless claim AGAIN, except maybe it's something you thought before and as always you won't admit to making a mistake. What difference does it make if the Estonia went down on her side vs upside down with respect to if she was deliberately sunk or not???
Click to expand...


It’s a Scientific FactTM that ships that are deliberately sunk always end up on their side. See, for example, the Hindenburg at Scapa Vamoose Flow: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SMS_Hindenburg_sunk.jpg
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
USS West Virginia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS...nese_raid_on_Pearl_Harbor_-_NARA_-_306536.jpg

USS Arizona:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arizona_(BB-39)#/media/File:USS_Arizona_2.png

USS California:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS...participation_in_World..._-_NARA_-_295983.jpg
Click to expand...

So that's all those ships that were torpedoed and bombed and they all went down without turning over!

By far the vast majority of ships you see sinking after hitting mines or being torpedoed look like this

pQS8yyrl.jpg


C8nyAwLl.jpg


EbeRtuKl.jpg
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Are you still not aware that one can overload a vessel by introducing a large mass of water into it?

Are you still not aware that on the night the Estonia sank, it was overloaded because a large mass of water was allowed to enter into it?

I think we're about done here. You do not know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

The maximum capacity of water on the car deck of the Estonia is 18,000 tonnes, thus it is balanced out by the hull.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Just roll it enough to put one of the gunwales under, it will sink when it fills up with water.

Why are you obsessed with boats turning turtle?
Click to expand...

Because if the Estonia only capsized because of water ingress into the car deck, the list of 40° would have caused it to capsize belly up, not immediately sink, although it would have sunk eventually as the water filled the air spaces of the superstructure. The windows in a ship are not like house or shop windows they are tough reinforced glass designed not to break even under extreme pressure.

Frogmen had to cut away the glass on the bridge with oxy-acetyline in order to enter.

So much for the JAIC assumption of the windows having broken when in contact with water pressure.
 
Vixen said:
The maximum capacity of water on the car deck of the Estonia is 18,000 tonnes, thus it is balanced out by the hull.
Click to expand...
Balanced out? Which two things do you have in mind that are balanced here, and what is the significance of their being balanced?

If you mean the weight of seawater which might fill the volume of the car deck is roughly equivalent to the displacement of the ship, then what if anything should that tell us?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What is your evidence for this?

ship's turning right over and staying afloat are very rare. If a ship goes to 90° it usually goes under.

It is difficult (but not impossible) to find examples of ships floating upside down for any time at all.
Click to expand...

Er, the MS Jan Heweliusz a good comparator to the Estonia and in a terrible unseaworthy state that I believe the owners were charged with manslaughter. Yet this ramshackle ferry stayed afloat turtled for five days, nonetheless.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What does Vasa have to do with anything?

Bulkheads will limit flooding but only if they are sealed. If there are openings then water will flood through.
If machinery spaces flood then there very well may not be enough buoyancy in other compartments to keep a ship afloat.

If water is flooding down from higher decks in to compartments then bulkheads will not help.

In the case of Estonia the thousands of tons of water on the car deck heeled the ship over submerging openings that allowed flooding of lower compartments and water gained entry from above through open stairwells and ventilators in to machinery spaces and accommodation.
Click to expand...

Kurm Sept 2021 found the passenger car deck doors intact and shut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom