| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#31
October 20th 04, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#33
October 20th 04, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: Would you be willing to work for what your Chinese counterpart is paid? And work under his conditions? Would you be willing to repeal most environmental, safety, and child-labor laws? How about intellectual-property protection? I wouldn't. You DON'T. Say...aren't you a PROFESSIONAL type of electronics engineer at your day job? Tsk. Well, as the PROFESSIONAL worker said..."Nobody's perfect." :-) |
|
#34
October 20th 04, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: Trying to turn away, and in doing so exposing the side of the ship to the danger, was the final mistake. That action can be understood, however, because the decision to do it was made in haste. (Later analysis showed that had the First Officer simply reversed engines and hit the 'berg head-on, the ship would have stayed afloat and few if any lives would have been lost). BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Riiiighhhtttt... Yeow...this group is funnier than a barrel of monkeys. :-) mental picture of old B-picture epics... "Ramming speed!" [drums increase their tempo] "Don't fire until you see the whites of their bergs!" John Paul Jones would have changed his name to 'Smith...' |
|
#35
October 20th 04, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#36
October 21st 04, 01:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes: No officer in their right mind is going to plow straight ahead into an iceberg to "save the ship". Sure they would - if they knew that the ship could not turn in time, and would sink as a result. That's a pair of compounded far-fetched what-if's which defy common sense. I'm not into endless streams of what-if's, they can go anywhere as has been the case for 92 years so far in the case of the loss of the Titanic and "prove" nothing. We're into an engineering screwup here, not what-if's. Not at all. The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the conditions. That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake. Recently there was a lawsuit in Lancaster County where a motorcyclist sued an Amish buggy driver. Seems the buggy's horse balked at crossing a bridge, and just stopped. Car came up behind the buggy driver and stopped too. But the two stopped vehicles were around a blind curve. Motorcyclist comes around the blind curve, swerves to avoid the stopped car, bike falls over and both he and the bike are pretty banged up. Now he says it was the buggy driver's fault, because he should not have hitched up a horse that might balk at crossing a bridge. He says the fact that he came around a blind curve at a speed where he couldn't safely control his motorcycle has no bearing on the accident. The court ruled otherwise. You stated "there was nothing wrong with its (Titanic's)design and construction." My position is that the Titanic apparently did have a major design flaw which led directly to it's loss, it's rudder was undersized. Titanic was "state of the art" for its time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society...tanic_02.shtml The rudder was grossly undersized so the Titanic did not respond to the helm soon enough and swiped the ice. Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, was essentiaaly the same ship. A few feet shorter and less luxurious, but the same basic design. Olympic went into service first, and much of her crew was transferred to Titanic because of their experience. No complaints of a grossly undersized rudder. See above link. Argue with them. I've already said that if the rudder were bigger, the collision might have been avoided. Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare. Perhaps if the rudder had been larger, the Titanic might have turned away quicker and missed the berg. But that's really irrelevant. The ship was clearly going too fast for conditions. There's no "might have beens" about it. Unless you can explain why a larger rudder wouldn't have turned the Titanic quicker so that it missed the berg. Simple. In a ship like Titanic, putting the rudder over isn't like steering the front wheels of a car. In landlubber terms, the rudder is at the stern, and depending on a lot of variables, putting the rudder left (to make a left turn) can make the stern of the ship go right. In reality, once Mr. Murdock got the bow of Titanic pointed in the right direction, he ordered the rudder reversed to avoid having the stern hit the berg. After the disaster, sister ship Olympic was heavily modified - bulkheads extended, double hull installed, and of course more lifeboats added. The third ship of the class, Britannic (originally to have been named Gigantic) was still under construction in 1912, and its design was similarly modified. No mention of any rudder modifications. Britannic never entered service as a passenger ship - she was converted into a hospital ship during WW1. The British govt. had some sort of deal where they helped finance the Olympic class, with the understanding that they would carry the mail [R.M.S. means Royal Mail Ship], and that in wartime they could be converted to military use if needed. Britannic's main use was to transport wounded back from Gallipoli. On her seventh trip, she struck a mine near Greece and sank even faster than Titanic had, despite all the improvements. Open portholes are generally blamed. Fortunately she was headed *towards* Gallipoli and wasn't carrying wounded, so most of those onboard survived. She lies on her side in about 400 feet of water, and was found in the 1970s by Jacques Cousteau. Olympic ("Old Reliable" to her crew) was in service for 25 years, being scrapped in 1937. During WW1 she served as a troop transport, and on one trip not only evaded being torpedoed but chased, rammed and sank the attacking U-boat. --- And now a trivia question, if anyone is still reading this far: In both "A Night To Remember" and "Titanic", when the berg is sighted, the command "hard a starboard" is given. Yet the ship turns to the left (port). And this is not a cinematic mistake. What's the explanation? 73 de Jim, N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#37
October 21st 04, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brian Kelly wrote:
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article t, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote On the subject of "MADE IN CHINA": There was a story in the local paper's business section about the bottleneck at various West Coast ports, specifically Long Beach and Los Angeles. Imports from Pacific Rim countries, particularly China, are arriving at such a rate that ships wait as much as a week to be unloaded because the port facilities can't handle the flow. New people are being hired and the facilities expanded, but such expansion takes time. Of course what's less visible is the flow of money in the opposite direction. If US manufacturers don't want the business at that price, then they have no reason to whine when an offshore firm does. Would you be willing to work for what your Chinese counterpart is paid? And work under his conditions? Would you be willing to repeal most environmental, safety, and child-labor laws? How about intellectual-property protection? So what's your solution? Shut off Pacific Rim imports and "Buy American"? Then cheerfully pay maybe $2,000 for a 21" Motorola TV rcvr? Or do you actually think that by shutting down imports from China we can "reform" them? Do you suggest we break out our little book of quotations from the Chairman? It isn't funny business. That country is hell bent on becoming the new worlds economic power - replacing us, and too many people are just happy to accept it. After all, they can just go home and watch that 99 dollar TV. Eventually, it will catch up with us. We live in a country where people seriously suggest boycotting Heinz Ketchup, and Proctor and Gamble for their satanic logo. Wonderful to see such conviction. But we are willingly allowing a communist nation (and remember, they are STILL a communist nation) to use all the tricks in the book to undercut the rest of the world economically. BTW, not too many people noticed just a couple months ago, when the US lost out on the title of the preferred country for investments. Guess who is number one now? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#38
October 21st 04, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#39
October 21st 04, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 10/20/2004 3:57 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Perhaps what makes the Titanic disaster so intriguing is that there were so many seemingly-small factors that contributed. The lack of even one of these small factors could have averted the sinking, or at least the loss of life. That's why they call the events leading up to a mishap "the chain of events"...Becasue if even one link in the chain had been broken, the chances of the incident occuring would have been reduced. Not just reduced but in most cases totally eliminated. That's what's so intriguing about the Titanic disaster. For example, with or without a bigger rudder, even a slight speed reduction would have given the crew more time to react, and the ship more time to turn and avoid. As it was, Titanic almost missed the berg, so a little more time, resulting in quicker turning would have been a critical factor. The business about surviving taking the berg head-on was confirmed by computer simulation. Done by expert professionals, too. One idea was disproved by computer simulation. Some folks speculated that if the watertight doors had been raised, the ship would have gone down level instead of bow-first, and stayed afloat longer because the bow, gangways and portholes would have stayed above water longer. Computer simulation showed that with the watertight doors open, the ship would have sunk even faster, and that power would have been lost much sooner, darkening the lights and silencing the radio. Plus cutting off the pumps. -- It should be remembered that none of the engineers aboard Titanic survived, because they all stayed on duty keeping steam up and the power on until the very end. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#40
October 21st 04, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the conditions. That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake. No, it was first and foremost an engineering screwup, if the rudder had been properly sized the ship would have turned harder/quicker at any speed and would have missed the iceberg. Particularly since the collision was only a sideswipe. Titanic was "state of the art" for its time. So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops. Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare. Perhaps if the rudder had been larger, the Titanic might have turned away quicker and missed the berg. But that's really irrelevant. The ship was clearly going too fast for conditions. There's no "might have beens" about it. Unless you can explain why a larger rudder wouldn't have turned the Titanic quicker so that it missed the berg. Simple. In a ship like Titanic, putting the rudder over isn't like steering the front wheels of a car. In landlubber terms . . . Save it for the landlubbers. massive snip By the way, ya want the list of ships I've been on during sinuous coursing anti-submarine drills at 30+ kts? Ever stand on the deck of a ship which is bigger the Titanic doing multiple banked s-turns turns at combat power speeds? There's some "rudder ops" which will get ya yer sea legs real quick . . . Now answer my question and thankew. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... | General | |||
Linear Mode
