Wallen wrote:
The ship was still moving forward. At that point it was a glider and the rudder will still work.
It won’t be able to be moved to counter the forces of wind and current.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
It won’t be able to be moved to counter the forces of wind and current.
We have to wait for the results of the investigations to really know.
How wide is the area of the bridge that fell down. catskinner
Wallen wrote:
Your misreading my posts as well.
I'm not stating this and that is what happened.
Just discussing the event and clarifying why i have such points of view.
"
But was heading for the pillar the whole time, maybe a full 10 minutes before impact, and was moving very fast for such a small navigation space at night." -- This is not "stating this and that is what happened"??
Wallen wrote:
Put a sail on a coracle, and have it pushed by the wind. Tack if you can.
To tack you need a keel. Coracles don't have one.
catskinner wrote:
How wide is the area of the bridge that fell down. catskinner
Wide or long? The main span was 1200 ft and I believe 4 lanes wide. Portions on either end of the main span also came down.
robertjerl wrote:
To tack you need a keel. Coracles don't have one.
Yes. And to tack, the ship is not blown around. Tacking & blown around by the wind are complete opposites.
srt101fan wrote:
"But was heading for the pillar the whole time, maybe a full 10 minutes before impact, and was moving very fast for such a small navigation space at night." -- This is not "stating this and that is what happened"??
A comment which is according to a video I saw, just minutes after it happened.
Obviousy, a view of the event based at the information I have then.
How does that initial comment be, and according to your previous post, collate all my discussion as ramblings?
Wallen wrote:
Yes. And to tack, the ship is not blown around. Tacking & blown around by the wind are complete opposites.
Not complete opposites. If the wind wasn’t capable of pushing boats around tacking wouldn’t be possible. Tacking is just taking advantage of the physics involved.
Wallen wrote:
A comment which is according to a video I saw, just minutes after it happened.
Obviousy, a view of the event based at the information I have then.
How does that initial comment be, and according to your previous post, collate all my discussion as ramblings?
Your initial post was over 24 hours after it happened, plenty of time to be more informed. None of your conjecture has been based on reality, hence “ramblings”.
Wallen wrote:
A comment which is according to a video I saw, just minutes after it happened.
Obviousy, a view of the event based at the information I have then.
How does that initial comment be, and according to your previous post, collate all my discussion as ramblings?
Wallen, I highlighted one of your comments but there are many others that, taken together, constitute ramblings of unsubstantiated innuendos (*) and conjectures. I think you know better and are just playing games.
(*) From Wikipedia: "
An innuendo is a hint, insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a denigrating or derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense, the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent."
SuperflyTNT wrote
Wide or long? The main span was 1200 ft and I believe 4 lanes wide. Portions on either end of the main span also came down.
Is the 1200' the area between the 2 piers where the ships pass thru? What is the total overall length of the area that fell down? Thank you for the answer. catskinner
dustie
Loc: Nose to the grindstone
catskinner wrote:
SuperflyTNT wrote
Wide or long? The main span was 1200 ft and I believe 4 lanes wide. Portions on either end of the main span also came down.
Is the 1200' the area between the 2 piers where the ships pass thru? What is the total overall length of the area that fell down? Thank you for the answer. catskinner
1200' was the main span of the continuous truss over the area of the shipping channel, between those two supports. Then each side of that main span were the side spans, or "back" spans, listed at 722' each. Continuous truss, which fell, was listed at 2644'.
In addition, three sections of the approach on the northern side fell. They may not have been equal lengths. Information on the approach spans states they are from 100' - 200' each.
dustie
OK, thank you. That is the distance I was won't to know as I had never seen any total length mentioned. catskinner
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
Wallen wrote:
Put a sail on a coracle, and have it pushed by the wind. Tack if you can.
If a Coracle is your idea of a vessel, I can see why you’re confused and with all due respect. I think some basic understanding of sailboats is in order. Sailboats are only “pushed” by the wind when they’re running before the wind (the wind is directly astern or off your stern quarter). If you change course (or the wind changes direction) such that the wind moves to the other quarter, you don’t tack, you jibe. On all other points of sail (Broad reach, beam reach, close reach or close hauled), the sail isn’t pushed, it’s “lifted” forward, much like a vertical aircraft wing, and the sideways force is resisted by the keel or center board and translated into forward motion. When you are sailing close hauled (at a small angle to the apparent wind) and you cross the wind to being close hauled on the opposite side of the vessel (tack), that is tacking. When sailing to windward, the only time you are “pushed” by the wind is if you are stopped, pointed directly into the wind because you are “in irons” or hove to.
Honestly, when you’ve dug yourself into a hole, the best strategy is to stop digging.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.