mbflash80 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 11 hours ago, El Presidente said: This is why Tik Tok is so good. These malcontents would be tracked, corralled, arrested, jailed and re-educated to do something useful like making shooaways. Man I hate flies and the Shooaway works wonders, but I've had double coronas that last longer than those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 11 hours ago, mbflash80 said: Man I hate flies and the Shooaway works wonders, but I've had double coronas that last longer than those things. Really? We get 32hrs on good AA batteries out of ours! Post a pic of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chas.Alpha Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 10 hours ago, El Presidente said: Really? We get 32hrs on good AA batteries out of ours! Post a pic of yours. I think I already posted a picture of the Shooaway after starting it up in front of the house cat! 😔 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainQuintero Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Nothing is stopping a horizontal skyscraper (Apparently nearly as big as the Chrysler Building) drifting towards it, 150,000+ tons with no breaks 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chas.Alpha Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 21 hours ago, Nevrknow said: Kind of what I was thinking. From an engineering standpoint, bridges do not "just fall" like that. Sure a "hit" section can get extremely damaged but that length? My second observation was that the video I saw showed a massive explosion when hit. Now from the cameras viewpoint that I saw it hit containers. Not the ship. All of the fireworks packed up front? What am I missing here? Serious question. No John. Please tell me that isn’t a serious question…😔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevrknow Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 8 hours ago, Chas.Alpha said: No John. Please tell me that isn’t a serious question…😔 Seriously. First video I saw was one later identified as put up by a troll. Fell for it. (Won't be the last time.) 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Latest news is that the ship's fuel may have been suspect, causing the engines to fail and lose power. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99call Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 On 3/28/2024 at 12:50 PM, Fuzz said: Latest news is that the ship's fuel may have been suspect, causing the engines to fail and lose power. Interesting....and there was I convinced it was going to be the Loch Ness Monster drawing it off course using alien space magnets tied to his tail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer Smokin' Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 So I had a conversation with some daft yanks at work today. Everyone becomes an expert overnight when a disaster occurs. The general sentiment stands to be that it was obvious this was a targeted location, and it was a cover up (from the very top) as to why nothing was done about it. After trying to control my laughter, I asked now that this has happened, what is the next most exposed bridge/pier/abutment in the US? It should be easy to list and rank the next five most exposed public infrastructure, right? Of course it isn't, because accidents are difficult to predict (more like impossible). If this was anything but an accident, you would see the US news stations all over the "next place" this is going tothappen. But they aren't because no one knows where the next accident is going happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helix Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Tin foil hat club is always ready to dismiss the obvious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99call Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 14 hours ago, Hammer Smokin' said: accident I genuinely hope it's an accident, but dirty fuel suggests short cuts to me. I.e. is it dirty?. Or is it substandard fuel. How did it get contaminated? Who is responsible for the checks? I would not be surprised if this is negligence or cost cutting. Here's hoping it was simply an accident. And that valuable lessons are gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puros Y Vino Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 On 3/28/2024 at 12:50 PM, Fuzz said: Latest news is that the ship's fuel may have been suspect, causing the engines to fail and lose power. That makes sense. I'm going to assume those are diesel engines. That's what I'm used to, having managed datacentres in the past. They are very simple mechanically and are very reliable. Which is why they are used as emergency power in datacentres. If a transfer switch senses power loss on the grid, the gens fire up in under 20 seconds and take the load that the UPS was holding. Once they're running they're solid. You either flip them off or the fuel runs out. Low quality fuel could lead to disruptions. That a ship this big doesn't have a failsafe (such as a UPS) for its navigation systems is a huge oversight IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainQuintero Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 12 hours ago, Puros Y Vino said: That makes sense. I'm going to assume those are diesel engines. That's what I'm used to, having managed datacentres in the past. They are very simple mechanically and are very reliable. Which is why they are used as emergency power in datacentres. If a transfer switch senses power loss on the grid, the gens fire up in under 20 seconds and take the load that the UPS was holding. Once they're running they're solid. You either flip them off or the fuel runs out. Low quality fuel could lead to disruptions. That a ship this big doesn't have a failsafe (such as a UPS) for its navigation systems is a huge oversight IMO. I think you can see in one of the videos big plumes of black smoke from the smoke stacks as they try and start/restart the engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrightonCorgi Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 12 hours ago, Puros Y Vino said: That makes sense. I'm going to assume those are diesel engines. Contaminated fuel is rife among many who are unsuspecting. Easy to mix it in. Should be severely punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigar Surgeon Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 On 3/28/2024 at 7:58 AM, CaptainQuintero said: Nothing is stopping a horizontal skyscraper (Apparently nearly as big as the Chrysler Building) drifting towards it, 150,000+ tons with no breaks I saw some Reddit math nerds working the problem today. The estimated mass was 95,000 tons travelling at 15 km/hr. They calculated the energy at essentially a 1,000lb bomb being dropped on the bridge. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrightonCorgi Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 13 hours ago, 99call said: I genuinely hope it's an accident, but dirty fuel suggests short cuts to me. I hope it's an accident. It's guilty until proven innocent in my industry. Jury is still out until a complete forensic investigation is done. Those potentially on the hook to pay will have their own investigations too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer Smokin' Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 I suspect the shipping company will have approx $100M (USD) in Liability insurance (give or take). This overall loss will be $1B+ I'm sure. Curious how financially stable this company is? (Or is bankruptcy inevitable?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeypots Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 I read this... The bridge was destroyed by a ship that is registered in Singapore, owned by a Hong Kong company, chartered by a Danish company, and (maybe) managed by an Indian company. It’ll be years before it’s sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MrBirdman Posted March 28 Popular Post Share Posted March 28 On 3/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, Webbo said: While is very difficult to change someones mind about things like this as someone who works in the steel industry and studied physics and metallurgy I would just point out that the steel did not melt. Steel melts (becomes fluid) around 1620 deg C but importantly above about 770 deg C a construction grade steel loses much of its strength and integrity and simply bends, this is known as the Curie Point. The temperature of the fire in the twin towers was in excess of the Curie point for steel and this temperature is easily achieved with a fuel based fire and the oxygen drafts that occurred. Are we really still explaining this to people who can’t be bothered to do some basic background reading? Yes, I guess we are. If they won’t take it from you, they’re hopeless. Conspiracy theorists are quick to dismiss scientific consensus and believe rumor and conjecture. Classic symptoms of paranoia. But hey, as George Carlin said, you only have to be right once to make all the paranoid thinking worth while! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrightonCorgi Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 9 hours ago, joeypots said: I read this.... The bridge was destroyed by a ship that is registered in Singapore, owned by a Hong Kong company, chartered by a Danish company, and (maybe) managed by an Indian company. It’ll be years before it’s sorted. Talked to a friend of mine that is a captain of similar ships. He had heard this ship had similar technical issues at a few previous ports around the world. It sounds like negligence of the ship's owner and/or operator. Too cheap to do the needful. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ha_banos Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I do expect an investigation to take forever. The lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank I guess. I fully expect cover up/spin mode set to full. I was reading 1-3$bn in insurance liabilities. Will heavily hit London brokers. I've referred on another thread to the UK post office Horizon scandal. Started in the 90s ongoing. That's about the cover up of a faulty IT system. It was misaccounting caused innocent people to be bankrupt and jailed even led incident people to suicide. The whole thing has been a cover up operation by RM. And it's still ongoing. Funding, millions raised for the court case. Still very little compensation. And no heads have rolled. No. Accountability. Let's see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuffnPuffff Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/29/2024 at 6:48 AM, Hammer Smokin said: I suspect the shipping company will have approx $100M (USD) in Liability insurance (give or take). This overall loss will be $1B+ I'm sure. Curious how financially stable this company is? (Or is bankruptcy inevitable?) Well Maersk makes between $3B and $10B a quarter in EBITDA, so they’re not a financially unstable company. For anyone who actually ships a container on a vessel, you’re actually entering into an adventure and if that adventure is disastrous you become liable to pay to cover it. Of course, you take out cargo insurance and that also covers wider liabilities like your stake in the adventure. We had containers on the Ever Given that blocked the Suez canal, and the Egyptian government wanted $1B for loss of canal fee revenue. The shipping line went round with their hat out to everyone who had cargo on the ship. The insurance companies picked up the tab. As mentioned elsewhere, it’s the London insurers who will pick up the bill. It’s not that significant in the grand scheme of things; imagine the other stuff they cover like hurricanes and oil spills. As it happens, we had cargo on this vessel in Baltimore, but it was unloaded 2 days prior. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainQuintero Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I'd imagine there's some pretty hefty get-out clauses for insurance companies if the questions about poor quality fuel or maintenance are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer Smokin' Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 We have a team that sits on the London trading floor. I'm most familiar with the placement of global insurance through that old coffee house. But I'm also sure that none of the single entities have purchased enough insurance to cover this one (as the likelihood of the event is remote - they would have had risk management teams to advise to self insure over a specific value). But it's the reason they are bringing in multiple parties, trying to split the contributory negligence. Any loss over $1B in London will cause a ripple effect across the entire world, and yes, right down to your home and auto premiums. (Treaty reinsurance is a wonderful thing.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wathabanos Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/27/2024 at 10:11 AM, joeypots said: I heard that there was no evidence of malice known yet. We don’t know what happened and government officials, so far, have made that clear. It’s awful how a deadly disaster that will cause horrendous disruption to ordinary people and the country instantly inflames inherent bias and consequently political and racist conspiracy theories. Right now it’s an accident. There have been quite a few recent transportation failures, air, rail, road, and now maritime. Maybe we need a little more oversight around here. More oversight? Right, cause that's worked so well for the Pharma, Aviation (*cough* Boeing *cough*), and Nuclear Power generation industries... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.e2a46b57b5880109ddf171d1b6f9daea.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now