Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On 22/12/2015 9:06 PM, Poutnik wrote:
Dne 22/12/2015 v 08:58 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
On 22/12/2015 4:19 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Do you have any maritime experience? Worked on any kind of ocean
going vessel(s)? Possess any knowledge gained from real life
experience?
Experience of ships? No. How would any of that help in deciding whether
the vessel would suck me down if it sank?
Or do you think there's some sort of mechanism that allows enlightenment
by osmosis?
Nautical society has advantage of collective experience
of huge number of people, surviving the ship sinking.
Even if I had been Nobel laureate for physics,
sailors would know more about surviving on sea than me.
For most things, perhaps. But how many sailors have experience of a
sinking, much less such experience from the the immediate vicinity of
the ship. Those who got sucked down, if any, won't be around to tell the
tale. Those who didn't get sucked down, and survived, would be
counter-examples.
Sylvia.
But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...
What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).
To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).
What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).
I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far were:
a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.
So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.
I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.
But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).
I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.
That is not neededIf you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.
When changing size, especially on the scale of a battleship comparedM. Stradbury wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...
What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).
To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).
What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).
I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far were:
a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.
So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.
I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.
But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).
If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.
I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.
In article <n5chck$gu4$1@dont-email.me>, poutnik4nntp@gmail.com says...
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?
sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.
M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:
Like toilet bowl water swirls.
A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.
http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water-toilet-swirl/#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
might not be able to see it with your toilet water."
I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.
On 22 Dec 2015 "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:
Like toilet bowl water swirls.
A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.
http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water-toilet-swirl/#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
might not be able to see it with your toilet water."
I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.
Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.
It rather looks like you became a joke victim.On 12/23/2015 3:08 AM, Micky wrote:
Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.
I have never heard anything like that in all my years (50 of them) of
construction, nor have I heard it from the plumbers to whom I have
talked. If flushing a toilet can damage "connections" we better start
building things a lot better.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:19:12 -0800, "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com
wrote:
M. Stradbury wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:
Like toilet bowl water swirls.
A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.
http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water-toilet-swirl/#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium
and Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show
that water (and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you
just might not be able to see it with your toilet water."
I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.
Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.
Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:07 MJC napsal(a):
In article <n5chck$gu4$1@dont-email.me>, poutnik4nntp@gmail.com says...
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?
sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sputnik
sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
"artificial satellite," extended from the name of the one launched
by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik "satellite,"
literally "traveling companion" (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi,
"traveling companion of the Earth") from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku,
from Russian so-, s- "with, together" + put' "path, way," from Old
Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- "to tread, go" (see find (v.)) +
agent suffix -nik.
I do not think it has Slavic origin.How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?
KAPUTNIK
It was a name of a character in 1960s Mad magazine.