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

[Andy_Ross]

Hamburg carried out a very detailed analysis of the various hardware of the bow visor. That was their sole aim, and as stated in their abstract.

Would you berate a dentist for failing to note a bunion?

A detailed analysis that found no sign of explosion damage otherwise they wouldn't have signed off the report as they did.

Thread continued from here.

You may quote or reply to any post from that or previous parts of this topic.

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's recorded in the Rikstag. (cf. Hirschfeldt 2005)

So show us.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here is a video showing a boat turning onto its side. How long does it float on its superstructure?

Where is the storm? where is the missing bow?

How do you think a deliberate capsize test of a small boat compares?

 

[Vixen]

A detailed analysis that found no sign of explosion damage otherwise they wouldn't have signed off the report as they did.

Looking for explosion damage was not its remit. Read the first few paragraphs to discover the scope. They were carrying out Finite Element Calculations to discover the levels of tension on the hinges, lugs and locks.

But then you knew that.

Dr.-Ing. Hans-Werner Hoffmeister Head of Department »Manufacturing Technology«

Institute for Machine Tools and Manufacturing Technology now at Braunsweig University

Books
Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner
High machining performance through grinding with CD (Continuous Dressing) - safe, material-adapted and economical process management
Technical University of Braunschweig, Vulkan-Verlag, Essen, 1995, ISBN 978-3-8027-8631-0
Publications
Dross, Marcel ; Albergt, Max ; David, Martin ; Reichler, Ann-Kathrin ; Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner ; Dröder, Klaus
Combined robot-based manufacturing and machining of multi-material components
In: The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , Springer Nature , 2021 , page 1-8 , DOI 10.1007 / s00170-021-07008-3
additional Information
Dröder, Klaus ; Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner ; Mahlfeld, Georg
In-situ measured variables and signal processing for determining residual stress when honing holes
In: Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner; Denkena, Berend , yearbook, grinding, honing, lapping and polishing , Vulkan-Verlag, Essen , 2020 , issue 69 , pages 246-254 , ISBN 978-3-8027-3133-4 etcetera, etcetera

Braunschweig


Dr. Hoffmeister specialises in mechanical engineering and tools. Why are you demanding he cross over to Metallurgy? Or produces a mix-up report and introduce subjects not stated in his abstract?

 

[Vixen]

So show us.

Here To Learn gave you a link a page ago.

 

[Vixen]

Where is the storm? where is the missing bow?

How do you think a deliberate capsize test of a small boat compares?

Do you believe a vessel floats on its superstructure? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Looking for explosion damage was not its remit. Read the first few paragraphs to discover the scope. They were carrying out Finite Element Calculations to discover the levels of tension on the hinges, lugs and locks.

But then you knew that.



Braunschweig


Dr. Hoffmeister specialises in mechanical engineering and tools. Why are you demanding he cross over to Metallurgy? Or produces a mix-up report and introduce subjects not stated in his abstract?

How could he produce the report without metallurgy being involved?

But if there he been explosion damage are you saying he wouldn't have recognised it or would have failed to report it in his findings?

Either he was incompetent or a liar under your interpretation.

How can you trust him?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh come off it, you really think that just because they weren't told to look for explosives they wouldn't have seen evidence of them? As Jay has pointed out repeatedly, explosive damage wouldn't just have been obvious, it would have been way more obvious than the damage they did find.

You're either clutching at straws, or you're inserting your own lack of knowledge of how these things work as if the actual experts would do so.

Also again, stop ignoring me and answer my questions please.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here To Learn gave you a link a page ago.

Where did you post one though? I never saw a link. All I saw was you post

It's recorded in the Rikstag. (cf. Hirschfeldt 2005)

Here_to_learn did post a link.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here To Learn gave you a link a page ago.

But you didn't.
What is at the link does not support your claims.
No mention of weapons or US marines guarding trucks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Do you believe a vessel floats on its superstructure? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I don't know what it is supposed to mean.
I have only seen the term in this thread, used by you.
It's not familiar to me from anywhere else.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you believe a vessel floats on its superstructure? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I believe a vessel floats while it has reserve buoyancy and it doesn't matter what you call the bits that provide it.

 

[JayUtah]

Looking for explosion damage was not its remit.

Irrelevant. They could hardly have failed to see it, if any had been there. You seem to think this sentence, ignorantly and often repeated, renders the investigators selectively blind.

They were carrying out Finite Element Calculations to discover the levels of tension on the hinges, lugs and locks.

But then you knew that.

In the course of doing that they also noted the general character of the affected parts including corrosion and fatigue cracking. Corrosion is generally visible to the naked eye. Fatigue cracks generally are not; the surface must be prepared and often dyed, and must be examined with a microscope. It is not a casual inspection. In preparing the surface to look for those elusive cracks, the researchers would have had to scrape away the unmistakably telltale evidence of pitting and contact welding left by nearby explosives, yet decided not to note it.

But then you knew that. Oh, wait -- you don't. That's because this is a specialized field that we already know you don't know anything about. You're arrogantly trying to tell people who do this for living how some group must have acted.

Dr. Hoffmeister specialises in mechanical engineering and tools. Why are you demanding he cross over to Metallurgy?

Why do you think metallurgy is not taught to mechanical engineers? Why do you think evidence of explosives can only be uncovered by specialized metallurgical techniques? What do you think identifying fatigue cracking entails?

What part of "I've done this for a living for nearly 30 years" was in any way unclear to you?

Or produces a mix-up report and introduce subjects not stated in his abstract?

Identifying corrosion and fatigue cracking isn't part of a strictly-mandated process of modeling failure using finite-element methods, but the team did it anyway because it was pertinent to their findings. Yet somehow the glaring evidence of explosively compromised metal wasn't something they felt they had to mention.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you believe a vessel floats on its superstructure? A simple yes or no will suffice.

This is meaningless gibberish.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here is a video showing a boat turning onto its side. How long does it float on its superstructure?

Oh good grief.

You've trawled the internet for something which "proves your point".

But what you've actually found here is entirely irrelevant wrt the sinking of the Estonia - or the sinking of any reasonably-large ship.

What you've found there is a video showing a capsize test for a pilot boat. The boat itself has full buoyancy as designed. There's no compromise in the hull. There's no sea water in the hull. There's no free surface effect in play.

The buoyancy test you've somehow decided is relevant.... is a standard test carried out on these sorts of smaller specialised vessels. These sorts of boats are designed to be self-righting if they ever get totally capsized for any reason (any reason, that is, which doesn't involve the boat being damaged or non-watertight).

The point of this buoyancy test - the only point of the test - is to confirm that if the vessel capsizes totally for any reason (and with a pilot boat, this might happen for example if it gets rolled over by a large container ship), it will right itself automatically.

The boat in that test was entirely sealed - it had a totally intact hull and sealed superstructure. The test therefore had absolutely nothing to do with what might happen to the boat if (eg) it got holed beneath the waterline by a rock or a large ship. For the purposes of this capsize test, the assumption was that the boat itself was watertight and in a proper state of repair/operation.

However..... it's rather clear that you didn't/don't understand what that video was actually showing - and what it was not showing. And ironically, the boat in that video didn't float upside down for more than a few seconds - the mass of its keel effectively made sure the boat self-righted as designed.

You don't know what you're talking about, Vixen.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is meaningless gibberish.

I believe that (eg) RMS Queen Mary 2 floats on its superstructure.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you believe a vessel floats on its superstructure? A simple yes or no will suffice.

We collectively repeat: what the holy heck does "....floats on its superstructure" actually mean??

Or to be more accurate: what does that phrase mean to you?

Because for the rest of us, it means nothing of any value or relevance.


(BTW, there is one thing I do know about vessels: empty vessels make the most noise.)

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe a vessel floats while it has reserve buoyancy and it doesn't matter what you call the bits that provide it.

Exactly. And because of this, a vessel doesn't sink until/unless enough mass is added to surpass that reserve buoyancy.


(Vixen's ludicrous "the air in the hull must be almost totally displaced/replaced with water for any ship to sink" nonsense is blown apart if one considers a ship with very little reserve buoyancy (eg a ship carrying very heavy cargo with low freeboard). In that kind of scenario, the volume (and therefore mass) of water required to sink the ship would only represent a small fraction of the total volume of air in the hull.)

 

[abaddon]

I would if the bunion was in the mouth of their patient.

Now you're back how about answering my long list of questions you seem to be studiously ignoring by trying to Gish gallop about the thread?

One of Visens odder proclamations. If my dentist found a bunion in my mouth, she would say WTAF is that and ship to ER pronto. I would expect no less from a professional.

Apparently, Vixen has very different expectations. Rather odd expectations. I am inclined to recommend that Vixen change GP but there is no chance she will listen to that. All of us are somehow part of the big mad jewish conspiracy. What convinces her of that? I have no clue and Vixen won't say. So there is not a whole heap anyone can do with that, is there?

 

[Vixen]

How could he produce the report without metallurgy being involved?

But if there he been explosion damage are you saying he wouldn't have recognised it or would have failed to report it in his findings?

Either he was incompetent or a liar under your interpretation.

How can you trust him?

For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.