On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:02:20 -0400, "Scotty" wrote this
crap:

My idea was not "always
loaded containers." It was to always load them

Hooh Boy!

What are you loading them with?





I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...


However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed:
You
now have 15
minutes to come up with a better idea.


'Breather tubes' in all eight corners.
However, they must be designed to not let rain water
in. And
the reefer units would need some kind of insulation in
them.

SBV




As has already been pointed out by others, shipping
containers are not
airtight or watertight, and fail to sink only because of
the buoyancy (if
any) of their contents.


Most empty containers float due to the trapped air in them.




Well, I gave you half an hour and you've still not come up
with a better
idea. Guess you lose, eh? :-D

You guessed wrong

I didn't say my idea was perfect, or even plausible, but it
definitely is WAY better than your stupid idea of ''loading
all containers''.

SBV

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:21:36 -0400, "Scotty" wrote:

As has already been pointed out by others, shipping
containers are not
airtight or watertight, and fail to sink only because of
the buoyancy (if
any) of their contents.


Most empty containers float due to the trapped air in them.

There is no trapped air in a shipping container. It is not trapped, it
is free to leave and be replaced with water. This is technically known
as flooding and it leads to sinking. Every time.

Casady.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...


However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed:
You
now have 15
minutes to come up with a better idea.


'Breather tubes' in all eight corners.
However, they must be designed to not let rain water
in. And
the reefer units would need some kind of insulation in
them.

SBV




As has already been pointed out by others, shipping
containers are not
airtight or watertight, and fail to sink only because of
the buoyancy (if
any) of their contents.


Most empty containers float due to the trapped air in them.




Well, I gave you half an hour and you've still not come up
with a better
idea. Guess you lose, eh? :-D

You guessed wrong

I didn't say my idea was perfect, or even plausible, but it
definitely is WAY better than your stupid idea of ''loading
all containers''.

SBV




Whatever you say, Wilbur. Read the thread. From the beginning.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:55:23 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:23:47 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they
can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

I would like topoint out that the boxes are not watertight. If the
stuff in the container is dense, it will sink. If it is filled with a
lot of foam packing, It won't sink.

Casady

Yes, this has been pointed out. Which is why I proposed requiring ballast
(or otherwise adjusting the buoyancy) so the container would sink if the
cargo would otherwise prohibit sinking.


I posted some figures(I thought to this thread) a while ago and
according to the insurance companies, that insure containers, the loss
per year is from 2 - 10,000 containers per year. The port of
Singapore, for example, handled some 23.2 million containers in 2005.

If you apply loss of containers ONLY to Singapore shipping then some
0.043 % of the containers passing through Singapore are lost.

The next question would be to determine how many boats are sunk by
collisions with containers each year and off set this figure by how
many vessels are sunk by collisions with other kind of floating
debris.

My suspicion is that the sinking of boats by hitting containers is
infinitesimal.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote in message
...
I posted some figures(I thought to this thread) a while ago and
according to the insurance companies, that insure containers, the loss
per year is from 2 - 10,000 containers per year. The port of
Singapore, for example, handled some 23.2 million containers in 2005.

If you apply loss of containers ONLY to Singapore shipping then some
0.043 % of the containers passing through Singapore are lost.

The next question would be to determine how many boats are sunk by
collisions with containers each year and off set this figure by how
many vessels are sunk by collisions with other kind of floating
debris.

My suspicion is that the sinking of boats by hitting containers is
infinitesimal.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

It would not at all surprise me to find that floating logs outnumber
floating shipping containers by at least an order of magnitude. And there is
no question that floating logs can do serious damage to vessels, large and
small. From time to time, a ship or a boat will strike a whale -- doing
serious damage to one or the other, sometimes both. And there may well be
other hazards out there as well. My comments regarding shipping containers
may not be focused on the entirety of floating hazards, but it's a start.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...



And there is
no question that floating logs can do serious damage to
vessels, large and
small. therefore I reccomend that a law be passed that all
logs must be
ballasted.

Oh yeah.....

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...



And there is
no question that floating logs can do serious damage to
vessels, large and
small. therefore I reccomend that a law be passed that all
logs must be
ballasted.

Oh yeah.....



Ya, your editing and adding material to my post might actually fool someone
who doesn't read the original. You have now officially joined the ranks of
Crap'n Kneel.

On Aug 26, 12:55 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Richard Casady" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:23:47 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they
can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

I would like topoint out that the boxes are not watertight. If the
stuff in the container is dense, it will sink. If it is filled with a
lot of foam packing, It won't sink.

Casady

Yes, this has been pointed out. Which is why I proposed requiring ballast
(or otherwise adjusting the buoyancy) so the container would sink if the
cargo would otherwise prohibit sinking.

Yeah... and lets burn 800 million more gallons of heavy fuel oil
lugging required ballast around the planet...brilliant!

Joe