"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ...
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.

Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
them.
As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
companies that will use them another 20 years.

Capt. American


Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


Jim Cate wrote:


Jeff Morris wrote:

Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
to you that
the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
Frankly, many
boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
surface
they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.


As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.

Two points:
1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
bottom.
From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
for either, unless your a salesman..

2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
before you claim it as a positive.

In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.

otn

Actually, I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty certain
that something like 2/3 that enter US ports are not because
of the longevity of the tankers. If you have data to suggest
otherwise, I'd like to see it. I do believe the US registered
fleet is double-hulled, however.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.

Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
them.
As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
companies that will use them another 20 years.

Capt. American


Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


Jim Cate wrote:


Jeff Morris wrote:

Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed
out
to you that
the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
Frankly, many
boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of
the
surface
they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.


As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for
some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable
(lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. -
If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.

Two points:
1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double
hull,
complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main
deck,
pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
bottom.
From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't
qualify
for either, unless your a salesman..

2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless
you
know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
before you claim it as a positive.

In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.

otn