On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:10:59 +0700, wrote:

Actually container ships are rated in 20 ft equivalent containers,

The figure I gave was for a twenty foot box. Seemed a lot, so I
refigured and got the same forty tons. I used ' The Calculator That
Takes No Prisoners,' the HP 48. The Chinese are building some 90 000
ton boxboats. To big for the Canal.

The 8000 pounds figure was empty weight, and the 40 ton figure was the
displacement, the weight, at 63 pounds/cubic foot, of a chunk of water
8x8x20 feet. At 35 000 lbs a 20 would float with half of it out of the
water.
The original question was if the could they be made to sink and I
pointed that if they started out that heavy , the all up weight comes
to a ridiculous total for the ships. As it is, a container of
machinery will slowly sink, but foam packing may keep a box,or enough
of them, the boxboat itself, afloat until it lots of rusting has
occured.

If I'm not mistaken the maximum total weight of a 20 ft. container is
35,000 lbs., and a 40 ft. container 45,000 lbs.

Twice as big as a 20 would translate to 70 000 pounds for a 40, not
35k. 45 000 does sound reasonable for something light enough to be
legal on the roads, however.

I believe that the
Emma Maersk is considered the largest container carrier in the world
with a capacity of at least 11,000 TUE's.. Length 396 M, Breadth 56 M,
Draft 30 M. No mention of displacement. 110,000 BHP, a cruising speed
of 27K and a crew of 13.

Crew of 13? One watch officer, one on the wheel, and one lookout times
three shifts. Plus a cook, the skipper, and the chief engineer. Twelve
right there. The seven masted schooner Thomas Lawson, had steam
winches to work the sails, and a crew of 18, and I believe Lakers
mostly have a crew of 29.

Maresk has the reputation of under stating the capacity of their ships
and outside estimates of capacity are in the range of 14,000 TEU's
giving a possible cargo capacity of 245,000 tons.

Go to www.pancanal.com to watch ships go through the locks in the
Panama Canal. Mostly boxboats.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
The original question was if the could they be made to sink and I
pointed that if they started out that heavy , the all up weight comes
to a ridiculous total for the ships. As it is, a container of
machinery will slowly sink, but foam packing may keep a box,or enough
of them, the boxboat itself, afloat until it lots of rusting has
occured.


How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be
loaded, either with cargo, mixed cargo or cargo and ballast, so as to make
them negatively buoyant? Might complicate loading a bit, but would increase
safety at sea immensely.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
news



How about passing international law that all shipping
containers must be
loaded,

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.

SBV

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
news



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.

now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.



"KLC Lewis" wrote
I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.

You mean, like trying to argue with a sockpuppet on the internet?

"Wilbur" I mean, not Scotty.

DSK

wrote in message
oups.com...
now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.



"KLC Lewis" wrote
I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff.

You mean, like trying to argue with a sockpuppet on the internet?

"Wilbur" I mean, not Scotty.

DSK


Na, I never try to argue with Wilbur, er, Crap'n Kneel. I do, however,
retain the right to poke him with sticks from time to time.

"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

"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.

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.

"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.