Baltimore Bridge

Spoiler so you guys don't have to read it.
dowie said:
More subtle strawmanning
Click to expand...

Lets see what I said in post 158, where I actually explained what I was talking about.
Chuk_Chuk said:
You need to know the direction of travel because with that you can calculate the angle of impact.

To deflect an object you must stop its velocity it one direction and then accelerate it in another direction.

A low angle of impact (probably less than 15 degrees basically glancing past the barrier) would indeed require far less energy than trying to stop it. However as the angle increases so does the energy requirement and at a certain angle the energy requirement to deflect the ship would exceed the energy just to stop it.

my comment about direction of travel was more so, that those waters are quite open and the exact approach angle of any ship can differ as there is no physical object/barrier that forces them to stay on a certain course.
Click to expand...

Lets zoom and enhance on the "harder" bit you seem to be stuck on.

Chuk_Chuk said:
A low angle of impact (probably less than 15 degrees basically glancing past the barrier) would indeed require far less energy than trying to stop it. However as the angle increases so does the energy requirement and at a certain angle the energy requirement to deflect the ship would exceed the energy just to stop it.
Click to expand...

Don't worry guys ignore the first sentence where I talk about glancing angles. :rolleyes:

These two sentences align with everything the engineers have said. But somehow I'm wrong :rolleyes:

I think that an crash/accident is an uncontrolled event at the ships could hit a barrier at any angle. But i'm wrong on that count as well. :rolleyes:

All my posts have been on the importance of impact angles on the design of barriers. But that's not important, if you say ships won't hit your barrier at anything other than glancing angles then they magically can't. :rolleyes:

What you've been strawmanning with all your posts is that I apparently inferred that you cannot have a barrier and that they don't exist. This magical post where I supposedly said this, exists in Dowie's head and the head of a few other posters who have fallen under the spell of the Dowie Hole. :rolleyes:

Don't worry just ignore this post exists on the third page. Nothing to see here. :rolleyes:
Chuk_Chuk said:
I think they only thing that could protect the bridge legs is a concrete island surrounding it.
Click to expand...


I guess, I didn't account for the Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending) that can only ever be hit at angle less than 15 degrees. It doesn't matter what direction the ship is travelling or the angle the ship is at, the Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending) will magically move the ship so that contact will only ever occur at an angle less than 15 degrees. At this point you are probably wondering if you can control the ship and prevent it directly impacting the Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending), why don't you just move the ship away and prevent contact with the Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending) in the first place, don't worry that is coming version 2 of the Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending).

The Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending) is made from the densest and hardest material known to man, all the threads that have been sucked into the Dowie Hole. Due to the density and hardness of this material, the Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending) does not deform as it absorbs the kinetic energy from the ship which would slow it down. No no no, dear reader its easier to just "deflect" the ship rather than to absorb any of the kinetic energy from the ship which would slow it down. This unique property of the material used in the Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending) allows ships to bounce off Dowie Hole bridge protection system (patent pending) like a ping pong ball against the wall.

With that we have reached the conclusion of the Dowie hole.
 
Last edited:
R4today had announced last years lloyds 7/8Bn profits

Suez canal incident showed, even if there are no fatalities, dredging some kind of channel to protect a bridge could still present possibility of an economic obstruction/hit.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Spoiler so you guys don't have to read it.
Click to expand...

I think you just got confused tbh... at some angles or at least with some shapes of barriers - say crashing into a straight edge perpendicular or close to it, it perhaps won't deflect. At no point is what you claimed true though whereby deflection is as hard or harder than stopping it as deflection still conserves some momentum, you don't need to know anything more other than it's deflected in order to state that. Why do you think dolphins are round rather than straight? The point there is so as to make deflection possible, to try to avoid it crashing into a straight edge perpendicular or close to. (Also it's a bridge, think about it - as I said you know roughly how ships will be approaching; in a channel in either direction)

The experts quoted clearly state that deflecting ships would be a way of protecting the bridge, it was quite correct for Werewolf to observe that stopping a huge ship would take a hell of a lot and it was quite correct for me to reply to him and point out that stopping the ship isn't necessarily required but rather you could aim to deflect ships. You decided to argue against that and were wrong and now you're miffed about it.
 
Last edited:
BowdonUK said:
The history of the boat seems very accident prone.
Click to expand...

I presume you are referring the the incident when the vessel hit the quay before which has been popping up on social media. Notwithstanding the fact it would almost certainly been a completely different crew back then, honestly these sorts of things (allisions with piers in strong winds etc) are surprisingly common. I work for a company with a fleet of circa 100 ships. There's internal incident reports every few days where something or other has gone wrong. It's just usually not big enough to make the news. Obviously stuff like the bridge incident is a lot more rare but these things do happen. Suez cancel incident is the other big one everyone has heard about recently but every few years there is something big that makes the news.
 
EH75 said:
I presume you are referring the the incident when the vessel hit the quay before which has been popping up on social media. Notwithstanding the fact it would almost certainly been a completely different crew back then, honestly these sorts of things (allisions with piers in strong winds etc) are surprisingly common. I work for a company with a fleet of circa 100 ships. There's internal incident reports every few days where something or other has gone wrong. It's just usually not big enough to make the news. Obviously stuff like the bridge incident is a lot more rare but these things do happen. Suez cancel incident is the other big one everyone has heard about recently but every few years there is something big that makes the news.
Click to expand...

I'm on the other end, generally dealing with the things that get hit! Or the bollards that shear.
I've rebuilt jetties, dolphins, quays, nav lights. All from collisions.
 
Harlequin said:
Who last week were global politics experts and the week before were submarine disaster ones....
Click to expand...


I always feel sorry for the wives of self-professed 'polymaths' :cry:

"Gosh that crane/bridge/tower/goose looks dangerous doesn't it dear"
"Well let me spend the next 45 minutes explaining why it isn't dangerous..."
*** ten minutes later ***
"I'll just keep quiet in future"
 
Dis86 said:
I think ours only go up to something like 12 knots.
Fairly small units as far as tugs go ( Damen Stan's). If we need bigger boys we call in the likes of Svitzer whose units are both a bit quicker and definitely more powerful.
Even ours have two engines that are basically from a lorry with bigger turbos on...(think they're deutz units on one, volvo pentas on the other). About 1500bhp combined.
Click to expand...

Having been on a few Svitzer tugs it really is amazing at just how big they are above and below water and the power they have on tap.
 
Early one morning I'd hitched a lift on one of our tugs out to a dredger east of the Isle of dogs, travelling up river we noticed a group of barges going downriver with the tide, having broken away from a buoy. We put a line onto them then I hopped up onto the deck to check the rest of the lines while the skipper radioed the port to tell them of our find.

if the tide had turned, they could have been amongst the bridges in little time. It was a small tugboat used for laying anchors or towing a single barge mainly but managed to hold the barges until help arrived.
 
Grim5 said:
According to MAGA voters, if America didn't send old weapons to Ukraine then this Singaporean ship would not have lost power and gone straight into a bridge support
Click to expand...
I heard it was to distract us from the Diddy story, or as always child trafficking is somehow involved. Some of the posts on Tiktok are just nuts. Sometimes I hope people are just on a wind up but sadly not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom