|
Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
|
"N2EY" wrote http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? Or were you just trolling? 73, de K0HB -- My name is Hans and I improved this message. |
Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals?
Dan/W4NTI "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... "N2EY" wrote http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? Or were you just trolling? 73, de K0HB -- My name is Hans and I improved this message. |
In article t, "KØHB"
writes: N2EY" wrote http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? The latter, Hans. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals? I'm sure it was, Dan. Do you know of any ocean liners designed and built by amateurs? (Please spare us the cult fable of Noahs ark.) 73, de K0HB -- My name is Hans and I improved this message. |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net...
"N2EY" wrote http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? Or were you just trolling? 73, de K0HB He didn't make any comment whatsoever. We'll have to wait for Darkguard. |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net...
"N2EY" wrote http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? Or were you just trolling? 73, de K0HB Hello, Hans C'mon, you know better than that. Perhaps the point is that equipment sold in the United States is *supposed* to be (and likely was) checked for radiated emissions. In my opinion, it should also be checked for radiated immunity, but that's another story. Also, conducted emissions are checked and now they even check if a system is distorting the AC mains! That was coming on line when I left the test lab in 1996. Of course, commercial equipment can and does fail at times. I remember we blew out the power supply of a monitor when we were irradiating the device under test with 3 v/m unmodulated rf at around 220 MHz. The picture started to tear and then the breaker tripped. Couldn't get it going again. The FCC is preoccupied with authorizing BPL and as long as government communications don't get hosed, they don't care. Apparently, however, they don't like false signals being sent on distress frequencies. They should stop being a mouthpiece for the current administration and power companies and get back to trying to make the airwaves a viable shared service for all. Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
KØHB wrote:
Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? Turns out that 121.5 is the 9th harmonic and 243 the 18th harmonic of a commonly used digital TV sampling frequency of 13.5MHz, used in DVD players. Some shielding inside must have come apart in that TV. And the errant signal travel up to an antenna or cable connection to leak out. This has been a concern in the digital TV manufacturing community. |
"Jim Hampton" wrote C'mon, you know better than that. Perhaps the point is that equipment sold in the United States is *supposed* to be (and likely was) checked for radiated emissions. Of course I know better than that! And so does Jim. A single example of this product developed some sort of birdie/spur on 121.5. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course the story makes good news copy on a slow day, but it's hardly a remarkable incident, and certainly not a reason to make snide innuendo about "Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS". Neither is it a reasonable basis for a jeremiad about the FCC shirking their responsibilities. Sheeeeesh! 73, de K0HB -- My name is Hans and I improved this message. |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: "KØHB" Date: 10/18/2004 6:45 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Please spare us the cult fable of Noahs ark.) This explains a lot. My name is Hans and I improved this message. This was "improved"...??? Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: "KØHB" Date: 10/18/2004 8:16 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Jim Hampton" wrote C'mon, you know better than that. Perhaps the point is that equipment sold in the United States is *supposed* to be (and likely was) checked for radiated emissions. Of course I know better than that! And so does Jim. A single example of this product developed some sort of birdie/spur on 121.5. Nothing more, nothing less. On the contrary. That device is a rather expensive piece of consumer electronics. If I plop down more than $100 for a television, I darn well expect it to do what I want, and I DON'T expect it to do stuff I don't want it to do...Like QRM'ing SARSAT. Of course the story makes good news copy on a slow day, but it's hardly a remarkable incident, and certainly not a reason to make snide innuendo about "Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS". Sure it was. It was an expensive piece of consumer electronics that launched an even more expensive (and potentially distracting) search and rescue mission. The USAF and it's proxy, Civil Air Patrol do NOT dismiss as "unimportant" ELT signals or RF radiated on ANY frequency that have the potential of being a distress signal. Neither is it a reasonable basis for a jeremiad about the FCC shirking their responsibilities. Why not? What other agency is responsible for establishing the technical standards for consumer Sheeeeesh! Sunnuvagun! My name is Hans and I improved this message. This was improved? Steve, K4YZ |
In article , "KØHB"
writes: "Jim Hampton" wrote C'mon, you know better than that. Perhaps the point is that equipment sold in the United States is *supposed* to be (and likely was) checked for radiated emissions. Of course I know better than that! And so does Jim. A single example of this product developed some sort of birdie/spur on 121.5. Nothing more, nothing less. If it happened once, it can happen again. We don't really know what made it fail that way. Of course the story makes good news copy on a slow day, but it's hardly a remarkable incident, False signal on a distress frequency? Possible fine of $10,000 if the owner turns it on again? Somewhat remarkable to me. and certainly not a reason to make snide innuendo about "Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS". I was simply pointing out that *any* piece of electronics can have problems. I guess that's not allowed here. Just like one must not wear shirts with the slogan "Protect Our Civil Liberties" where President Bush can see them. Neither is it a reasonable basis for a jeremiad about the FCC shirking their responsibilities. I think it is, considering the background of how loose certification has become. --- 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article t, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals? Yes - but there was nothing wrong with its design and construction. In fact, it carried more lifeboats, and employed more modern safety equipment, than was required by regulations at the time. The Titanic's problem was improper operation. Steaming full speed into an ice field on a cold, calm, moonless night after receiving no less than six warnings of ice ahead was simply reckless. Doing so when the lookouts had no binoculars was even more reckless. 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). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Leo
writes: On 18 Oct 2004 22:57:00 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article t, "KØHB" writes: N2EY" wrote http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? The latter, Hans. Jim, I noticed that Hans had three options to choose from in his original post - the third being: Or were you just trolling? For the sake of accuracy, this one would be the latter , Jim..... :) Seems to fit best, as well. And as usual. My point was simply that even high priced state of the art electronics can go awry at times, and in ways that affect more than the owner of the device. IOW, nobody's perfect. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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. 73, de K0HB -- My name is Hans and I improved this message. |
|
On 19 Oct 2004 09:42:11 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:
In article , Leo writes: On 18 Oct 2004 22:57:00 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article t, "KØHB" writes: N2EY" wrote http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html Jim, Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem? Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0? The latter, Hans. Jim, I noticed that Hans had three options to choose from in his original post - the third being: Or were you just trolling? For the sake of accuracy, this one would be the latter , Jim..... :) Seems to fit best, as well. And as usual. My point was simply that even high priced state of the art electronics can go awry at times, and in ways that affect more than the owner of the device. IOW, nobody's perfect. Gee, that's good to know - for a minute there, I thought it might have been another rant on how those pesky bumbling "PROFESSIONALS" keep messing things up........ :) 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
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? I wouldn't. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
N2EY wrote: In article , "KØHB" writes: "Jim Hampton" wrote C'mon, you know better than that. Perhaps the point is that equipment sold in the United States is *supposed* to be (and likely was) checked for radiated emissions. Of course I know better than that! And so does Jim. A single example of this product developed some sort of birdie/spur on 121.5. Nothing more, nothing less. If it happened once, it can happen again. We don't really know what made it fail that way. Of course the story makes good news copy on a slow day, but it's hardly a remarkable incident, False signal on a distress frequency? Possible fine of $10,000 if the owner turns it on again? Somewhat remarkable to me. and certainly not a reason to make snide innuendo about "Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS". I was simply pointing out that *any* piece of electronics can have problems. I guess that's not allowed here. Just like one must not wear shirts with the slogan "Protect Our Civil Liberties" where President Bush can see them. Neither is it a reasonable basis for a jeremiad about the FCC shirking their responsibilities. I think it is, considering the background of how loose certification has become. --- 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. And what is even LESS thought of is their investment in us and propping of our economy that they are doing. One of these days man, And it won't be very long They gonna own us. Scares the bejabbers out of me. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 also the possibility that the cold water around there made the steel the ship was constructed with somewhat brittle. That the metalurgy of steel wasn't that well controlled or understood back then. And that the batch of steel used for the hull wasn't as good as it should have been. And that modern ship builders would never use it today. That the same ship built with good steel could have taken that iceberg hit with much less if any damage. I still wouldn't sail a ship thru iceberg infested waters. |
If it happened once, it can happen again. We don't really know what made it fail that way. Of course the story makes good news copy on a slow day, but it's hardly a remarkable incident, False signal on a distress frequency? Possible fine of $10,000 if the owner turns it on again? Somewhat remarkable to me. Stations in distress may only be able to produce QRP level signals. Thus you want to have *NO* QRM on those frequencies. If I were the owner I'd unplug it and be screaming at the manufacturer to come get it and fix or replace it. |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: False signal on a distress frequency? Possible fine of $10,000 if the owner turns it on again? Somewhat remarkable to me. One can imagine the reaction when the feds came banging on the door... Stations in distress may only be able to produce QRP level signals. Thus you want to have *NO* QRM on those frequencies. If I were the owner I'd unplug it and be screaming at the manufacturer to come get it and fix or replace it. I'd want my money back. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: 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 also the possibility that the cold water around there made the steel the ship was constructed with somewhat brittle. That the metalurgy of steel wasn't that well controlled or understood back then. And that the batch of steel used for the hull wasn't as good as it should have been. And that modern ship builders would never use it today. That the same ship built with good steel could have taken that iceberg hit with much less if any damage. More than a possibility, it's been documented from samples brought up from the wreck. Lot of sulfur in that steel. 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. For example: If the lookouts had binoculars, they probably would have seen the berg sooner, and the attempt to steer around it would have been successful. (The binoculars were locked in the second officers' cabin, but neither he nor the other officers knew it at the time. Still there). If any of the six ice warnings had been heeded, and speed reduced just a bit, the attempt to steer around the berg would have been successful. If the first officer had not tried to steer around the berg, the ship would have stayed afloat. If there had been lifeboat space for all, all could have been saved. (The design of the Olympic class could accomodate enough lifeboats - special davits were used that allowed more lifeboats, by stacking them on the boat deck. But lifeboats cost money, took up deck space, and everyone thought they'd never be used. So the full number were not provided. After the disaster, sister ships Olympic and Britannic were equipped with adequate lifeboats by simply reverting to the original plan). If there had been 24 hour radio watch required, the nearby Californian could have saved most if not all who perished. If Titanic had used a standard distress flare signal, (I don't think such a signal existed in April 1912) the nearby Californian could have saved most if not all who perished. If better steel, a bigger rudder, higher bulkheads, double hull (not just a double bottom), or higher capacity pumps had been used, the disaster could have been avoided or the ship kept afloat long enough for all to be saved. If the officer on the Californian who knew Morse Code and who used to listen in when "Sparks" was off duty had remembered to wind up the magnetic detector, he would have heard the distress calls and Californian could have saved most if not all who perished. But he forgot and heard nothing. I still wouldn't sail a ship thru iceberg infested waters. Not at full speed with inadequate lookout capability and a big, slow turning ship! Which proves the point: Titanic was not being operated properly for the conditions encountered. Other ships had stopped completely, or were proceeding at greatly reduced speed, because of the ice. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
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. And what is even LESS thought of is their investment in us and propping of our economy that they are doing. That's what I was trying to say, I think. One of these days man, And it won't be very long They gonna own us. In some ways they already do. Try to buy a new computer that's American made. Or many other items. The brand name may be USA but the "Made In XXX" label tells the facts. It's "good for business/the economy" in the short run because the prices are lower. But in the long run, we're not going to have the American Dream by manufacturing only weapons, high tech stuff, and taking in each other's washing. Scares the bejabbers out of me. Me too. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article t, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals? Yes - but there was nothing wrong with its design and construction. In fact, it carried more lifeboats, and employed more modern safety equipment, than was required by regulations at the time. The Titanic's problem was improper operation. Steaming full speed into an ice field on a cold, calm, moonless night after receiving no less than six warnings of ice ahead was simply reckless. Doing so when the lookouts had no binoculars was even more reckless. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
"N2EY" wrote 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? That's all a red-herring of Andersonesque proportions and you know it. (If you don't know it, then enroll in a basic global economics class at your local Community College.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: Which proves the point: Titanic was not being operated properly for the conditions encountered. Other ships had stopped completely, or were proceeding at greatly reduced speed, because of the ice. The crew got paid...ergo, they were PROFESSIONALS!" So, Master Amateur Mariner, when are you lecturing at the Naval Academy on seamanship? Is that right after you finish the lectures on military land warfare at West Point and USAF arcraft history at the Air Academy? [just wondering...] |
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." :-) |
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...' |
|
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 |
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 - |
|
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com