|
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be loaded, now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week. SBV I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff. Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll try your hardest. Scotty Hey, if he wants dumber, he can always read and study the posts of some of the more......proficient? posters of this group. One who has more, is worth more, and is better at everything comes immediately to mind. Also, one from a bay-area in Kalifornicatia. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be loaded, now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week. SBV I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff. Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll try your hardest. Scotty Okay, so I take it you are going on record as being in favor of shipping containers floating free and sinking boats that cannot see them? It strikes me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position. But at least I'm not the one who came up with it. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be loaded, now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week. SBV I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff. Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll try your hardest. Scotty Okay, so I take it you are going on record as being in favor of shipping containers floating free and sinking boats that cannot see them? Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing! It strikes me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position. Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised. But at least I'm not the one who came up with it. really? show me the post where I wrote that first. SBV |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message ... Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing! It strikes me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position. Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised. But at least I'm not the one who came up with it. really? show me the post where I wrote that first. SBV Look, bubbie, this isn't rocket science. I posted, somewhat tongue-in-cheek though not entirely so, a possible solution to containers floating around in a way that they could sink boats. You replied that it was "the dumbest thing (you) had ever read." 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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing cousin: Post a better solution. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Scotty" wrote in message ... Well then, you take it wrong. I wrote no such thing! It strikes me (no pun intended) that that's a pretty dumb position. Well, *you* came up with it, so I'm not surprised. But at least I'm not the one who came up with it. really? show me the post where I wrote that first. SBV Look, bubbie, this isn't rocket science. I posted, somewhat tongue-in-cheek though not entirely so, a possible solution to containers floating around in a way that they could sink boats. What you suggested was dumb...D U M B ! You replied that it was "the dumbest thing (you) had ever read." ''this week''. I haven't read your past posts. 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. When you ASS U me stuff, you make an ASS out of U, not ME. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they can do harm. You are WRONG again! Are you related to Boobspit? SBV |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Scotty" wrote in message . .. Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing cousin: Post a better solution. I never said I had a better solution, although given 15 minutes I could come up with something better than your dumb idea. I merely pointed out that your dumb idea of always loaded containers was the dumbest thing I have read all week. It's not just dumb, it's unfeasible. SBV |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Scotty" wrote in message . .. Last chance before you become Crap'n Kneel's kissing cousin: Post a better solution. I never said I had a better solution, although given 15 minutes I could come up with something better than your dumb idea. I merely pointed out that your dumb idea of always loaded containers was the dumbest thing I have read all week. It's not just dumb, it's unfeasible. SBV Now that's the dumbest post I've read all year. My idea was not "always loaded containers." It was to always load or ballast them in a way that they would always sink if they went overboard. And since you have been thinking about this for a few days now without posting a better idea, capable only of casting derision upon those who actually HAVE ideas, I must now consider you to be incapable of having any ideas of your own. However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed: You now have 15 minutes to come up with a better idea. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in My idea was not "always loaded containers." It was to always load them Hooh Boy! Clock's ticking, bubbie. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in My idea was not "always loaded containers." It was to always load them Hooh Boy! |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... 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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... 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. "Breather Tubes" to let more air out, or more water in, will not solve the essential problem. Clock's still ticking. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Scotty" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in My idea was not "always loaded containers." It was to always load them Hooh Boy! Clock's ticking, bubbie. tick, tock, tick, tock...Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt ! |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Scotty" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... 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. "Breather Tubes" to let more air out, or more water in, will not solve the essential problem. Clock's still ticking. Well, I gave you half an hour and you've still not come up with a better idea. Guess you lose, eh? :-D |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Scotty" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... 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. "Breather Tubes" to let more air out, or more water in, will not solve the essential problem. Clock's still ticking. Well, I gave you half an hour and you've still not come up with a better idea. Guess you lose, eh? :-D Scotty was having a battle of wits with a witless twit. How can he possibly lose? You were un-armed. |
Catamarans have something extra....
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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Neal" wrote in message ... Scotty was having a battle of wits with a witless twit. How can he possibly lose? You were un-armed. And yet he still lost. Hard to believe, innit? |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:44:39 -0400, "Neal" wrote this
crap: Hey, if he wants dumber, he can always read and study the posts of some of the more......proficient? posters of this group. One who has more, is worth more, and is better at everything comes immediately to mind. Also, one from a bay-area in Kalifornicatia. Are you talking about Jon-boy? I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:54:37 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote this crap: However, I accept the challenge you yourself proposed: You now have 15 minutes to come up with a better idea. How about a game show like Hollywood Squares, but with kids? Gary Coleman could host. I've been waiting to use that line. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Catamarans have something extra....
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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
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) |
Catamarans have something extra....
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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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..... |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com