Thanks for your response!

"Alice" wrote in message
...
The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty
- can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier

Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans
Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water
cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck.

The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they
could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm.


--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)

"Alice" wrote in message
...
The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty
- can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier

Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans
Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water
cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck.

The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they
could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm.


--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
"Alice" wrote in message
...

The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty
- can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier


Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans
Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water
cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck.

The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they
could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm.


--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)


That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up .....

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
"Alice" wrote in message
...

The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty
- can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier


Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans
Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water
cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck.

The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they
could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm.


--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)


That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up .....

otnmbrd wrote:

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
"Alice" wrote in message
...

The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty
- can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier


Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans
Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water
cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck.

The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they
could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm.


--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)


That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up .....

Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire
fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop
rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high
counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll
stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward
motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is
actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to
forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover
propulsive energy in advantageous postures?

Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity
powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind
induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings
would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning,
replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while
allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in
the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes.
Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and
you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing
workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even
saving wage requirements.

Serendipity?

--
Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by
copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is
specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested
solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ®

otnmbrd wrote:

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
"Alice" wrote in message
...

The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty
- can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier


Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans
Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water
cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck.

The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they
could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm.


--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)


That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up .....

Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire
fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop
rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high
counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll
stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward
motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is
actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to
forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover
propulsive energy in advantageous postures?

Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity
powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind
induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings
would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning,
replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while
allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in
the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes.
Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and
you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing
workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even
saving wage requirements.

Serendipity?

--
Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by
copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is
specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested
solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ®

Not sure what your getting at here.
What I was referring to, was the destabilizing effect of all that water
in high areas .... loss of stability due to high weight, coupled with
loss of stability due to "free surface effect".
There are two types of stabilizers, employed on ships .... active ( gyro
controlled fins), and passive ( such as FLUME - doubt QM2 is using Flume).
The flume system uses water in thwartship tanks (preferably up high) to
counter rolling .... basically a moving weight, or, another way to look
at it, turning free surface into an advantage.
I don't know of any ships which store water to use in a gravity feed to
supply fire mains.

The power used with fins, in no way affects the power available to the
mains, to drive the ship .... their adverse affect will be drag related.

Terry Spragg wrote:

otnmbrd wrote:


That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up .....


Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire
fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop
rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high
counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll
stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward
motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is
actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to
forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover
propulsive energy in advantageous postures?

Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity
powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind
induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings
would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning,
replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while
allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in
the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes.
Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and
you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing
workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even
saving wage requirements.

Serendipity?

Not sure what your getting at here.
What I was referring to, was the destabilizing effect of all that water
in high areas .... loss of stability due to high weight, coupled with
loss of stability due to "free surface effect".
There are two types of stabilizers, employed on ships .... active ( gyro
controlled fins), and passive ( such as FLUME - doubt QM2 is using Flume).
The flume system uses water in thwartship tanks (preferably up high) to
counter rolling .... basically a moving weight, or, another way to look
at it, turning free surface into an advantage.
I don't know of any ships which store water to use in a gravity feed to
supply fire mains.

The power used with fins, in no way affects the power available to the
mains, to drive the ship .... their adverse affect will be drag related.

Terry Spragg wrote:

otnmbrd wrote:


That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up .....


Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire
fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop
rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high
counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll
stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward
motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is
actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to
forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover
propulsive energy in advantageous postures?

Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity
powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind
induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings
would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning,
replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while
allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in
the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes.
Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and
you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing
workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even
saving wage requirements.

Serendipity?

otnmbrd wrote:

Not sure what your getting at here.
What I was referring to, was the destabilizing effect of all that water
in high areas .... loss of stability due to high weight, coupled with
loss of stability due to "free surface effect".
There are two types of stabilizers, employed on ships .... active ( gyro
controlled fins), and passive ( such as FLUME - doubt QM2 is using Flume).
The flume system uses water in thwartship tanks (preferably up high) to
counter rolling .... basically a moving weight, or, another way to look
at it, turning free surface into an advantage.
I don't know of any ships which store water to use in a gravity feed to
supply fire mains.

The power used with fins, in no way affects the power available to the
mains, to drive the ship .... their adverse affect will be drag related.

Their serendipitous, synergystic effect, hardly adverse.

Stabiliser fins are flipper propulsors, too, if programmed right.


Terry Spragg wrote:

otnmbrd wrote:


That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up .....


Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire
fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop
rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high
counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll
stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward
motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is
actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to
forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover
propulsive energy in advantageous postures?

Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity
powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind
induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings
would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning,
replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while
allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in
the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes.
Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and
you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing
workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even
saving wage requirements.

Serendipity?


--
Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by
copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is
specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested
solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ®