That makes sense, Thanks.
In order to work to avoid water hypothermia, the four bracelets would have to collectively displace more than the mass of the person concerned. That would make them, to put it lightly, unwieldy, and moreover it would be highly metastable, so a 'user' would have to constantly balance to keep themselves above water -- with their hands and feet in 29-degree constant immersion. (Of course they would have likely become wholly drenched jumping from the ship, so are now exposed to ambient air with a huge wetted surface area -- not likely to avoid hypothermia at least to the extent of making them unable to keep up the balancing act.
Recovery into a boat would be difficult with all the bulky floats tightly wrapped to wrists and ankles.
The premise of the Israeli invention is not to 'float' people above the water, but to keep them with their heads upright with just enough buoyancy to ensure their noses and mouths remain above water. If they are unconscious the solution won't help them much, because their arms will float over their heads if they swallow or inhale even a small amount of water or their clothes become waterlogged.
CS: Apologies. Respect your religious feelings.
Not about to try the experiment.
Wonder how easy it would be to avoid ending up with your wrists and ankles on the surface and the rest of you beneath them.
daveklepper Maybe if one had four, one on each limb (wrists and ankles), one could walk on water?
Maybe if one had four, one on each limb (wrists and ankles), one could walk on water?
The device might help someone to float, but they must be rescued before hypothermia sets in. I doubt it would have helped most Titanic victims.
Going back to the Titanic, a start-up Israeli company is now astarting to manufacture a wrist bracelet that might have saved lives in both the Titanic and Titan tragedies.
And regarding water displacement, for those that miss a deleted thread, if you wear this bracelet, possibly you are zssured of continurd lifem regardless of swimming skills or depth of water, should you attemp to walk on water.
And the device may be standard for ocean ships and gtransp-ocean air travel.
Seems a tad mean spirited to me. It has a classic feel but it's right up there with the ballad of Casey Jones and Be British as far as being a popular tune a century after the event is concerned. They ain't no Gordon Lightfoot.
Same me, different spelling!
OvermodI will have to check, but I think American Milemaster was built with aluminum truck frames. They were quickly replaced and, as with front-feed coal stokers, swept as quickly and mercifully from popular railroad history as possible.
American Milemaster and duplicate Muskingum River were built with GSC steel trucks. The 1933 "George M Pullman" was definitely built with four wheel aluminum trucks, replaced by six wheel steel trucks.
Flintlock76I don't know what to think about it. What does everyone else think?
I couldn't make it past one verse. Hearing the deep breaths on the microphone before each line is horrible. I don't think the guy has the pipes for it.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Well this is surprising, someone's come up with a traditional sea chantey concerning the Ocean Gate sub disaster.
I don't know what to think about it. What does everyone else think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v11-ID5vq-k
I will have to check, but I think American Milemaster was built with aluminum truck frames. They were quickly replaced and, as with front-feed coal stokers, swept as quickly and mercifully from popular railroad history as possible.
Guided by some of the research into duralumins in the WWI era, PRR made and tested a set of aluminum side rods (!) on an I1s Decapod (!!) I have only ever seen pictures of these under test with a great many strain gages across the web of the main. Let's say I'm not terribly surprised this experiment 'failed to thrive'...
It has been said the picture of good Father in the barber chair taking his picture was the very first selfee.
pennytrainsThat's why our Ohio license plates say "Birthplace of Aviation" rather than "First in Flight".
And rightly so, North Carolina is where the Wright flew em' but Ohio is where they built 'em.
And as far as controllability is concerned when Wilbur Wright demontrated a Wright airplane in France to their pioneer aviators one turned to another and said "Monsieur Wright has sent us all back to school!"
Flintlock76The Wrights had a good idea of what worked and what didn't work and built on that.
And I've heard it said that the Wright's should be more remembered for making flying a verb. They really went a lot further than anyone before in the science of aircraft control. That's why our Ohio license plates say "Birthplace of Aviation" rather than "First in Flight".
Timz: The trucks and wheels were typically steel, but several of the early aluminum passenger cars did have aluminum underframes.
Balt: Carbon fiber solid rocket motor casings are usually filament wound with the filaments wound at an angle with the circumference of the motor casing. IIRC, the winding is done in such a way that each layer is wound at the opposite angle of the layer below it. Since the motors have end caps, there is a longitudinal stress and well as a hoop stress placed on the case wall.
One possible no-no occurred to me about the Titan: The overall elastic modulus of the cylinder may have been different then the modulus of the end caps. This would translate the cylinder and endcaps shrinking differently and thus putting a lot of shear stress on the joint between the cylinder and the caps, which might exlain I don't recall seeing any part of the composite cylinder attached to the front hemisphere.
Erik_MagIn the early streamliner era, there were a number passenger trains built with all-aluminum construction, but the requirement for yield strength to be 80% or less of ultimate tensile strength led to to steel underframes.
BaltACDIf we always do what we have done in the past - we will never get beyond where we were in the past. Only 120 years ago, mankind's feet were firmly planted on the ground - then came the Wright Brothers and Kitty Hawk, NC to challenge that concept.
Quite true, but remember the Wrights didn't operate in a vacuum, they made use of knowledge of experiments in fixed wing flight going back to the mid-19th Century like the works of Henson and Stringfellow, and then the glider experiments of Otto Lilienthal and Samuel Langley in the 1890s. Others in Europe were following the same path but the Wrights got there first. The Wrights had a good idea of what worked and what didn't work and built on that.
Remember what I said about "The Box."
I saw pictures of some of the larger pieces of the Titan that have recovered. The hemispherical ends appear to be pretty much intact, though the viewport on the front seems to be missing. Obvious take-away was catastrophic failure of the carbon fiber cylindrical section, which looks to have sheared any attachment with the carbon fiber cylinder.
I've come across numerous comments about not expecting much compressive strength from carbon fiber composites.
In the early streamliner era, there were a number passenger trains built with all-aluminum construction, but the requirement for yield strength to be 80% or less of ultimate tensile strength led to to steel underframes. Carbon fiber composites are even more brittle than aluminum.
I agree, but from what I've heard the sub wasn't rated for that kind of depth.
Flintlock76 pennytrains Why anyone would think a non spherical design would be ok I can't guess. I can't figure out that one either, the technology's been around for over 60 years, even longer if you conside the Bathysphere, and the reason it's still used is because it works. I'm no engineer by any means but even I know a cylinder's not going to withstand as much outside pressure as a sphere will.
pennytrains Why anyone would think a non spherical design would be ok I can't guess.
I can't figure out that one either, the technology's been around for over 60 years, even longer if you conside the Bathysphere, and the reason it's still used is because it works.
I'm no engineer by any means but even I know a cylinder's not going to withstand as much outside pressure as a sphere will.
How big does the sphere have to be to permit FOUR or more PAYING 'passengers'?
I am not an engineer either - however, from my racing experience I have learned a 'little' about carbon-fiber construction. What I saw of Titan's construction was the carbon-fiber we being applied in a continuous fashion around the form for the passenger compartment. The little I know is that the carbon-fiber hast to be laid in multiple intersecting angles to develop strength, if what is being constructed is expected to be strong. How you accomplish that on a cylinder I will leave to legions of engineers that know much more than I do.
If we always do what we have done in the past - we will never get beyond where we were in the past. Only 120 years ago, mankind's feet were firmly planted on the ground - then came the Wright Brothers and Kitty Hawk, NC to challenge that concept.
The one thing that cannt be said about the Oceanscape owner - he put his money and mouth and body at risk in his beliefs. He paid the price for his failures.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
pennytrainsWhy anyone would think a non spherical design would be ok I can't guess.
In "Secrets of the Titanic", the National Geographic Special covering Dr. Ballard's explorations, they describe what was necessary to reach the wreck: "a sealed six foot titanium sphere crammed with equipment and three uncomfortable humans.". Why anyone would think a non spherical design would be ok I can't guess.
As Steve Slaby, my drafting professor at Princeton, would say: You don't push on a rope no matter how cleverly it's embedded.
(He's also the one who snarled about 'postwar technology' and got me using the expression...)
OvermodI still can't understand how someone with a MAE degree from Princeton didn't understand that carbon-fiber composite is not stable in compression as it is in tension (in wound pressure tanks and the like).
"Outside the box" thinking I suppose. Or something.
There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box as long as you remember the box is there for a reason. Probably a very good reason.
daveklepperWendy Rush a descendant of two first-class passengers aboard the Titanic when it sank in 1912 after hitting an iceberg, the New York Times said on Wednesday. The tragic tale of wealthy Isidor Straus, co-owner of Macy's department store and his wife Ida, is told in James Cameron's movie "Titanic." Wendy Rush is their great-great-granddaughter
What a cruel irony.
For those interested, here's a 34 minute video about the OceanGate's Titan and it's the best report on this tragedy I've seen, well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O5F4ZVlIac&t=14s
This is from the host's YouTube channel called "Oceanliner Designs," a VERY well done channel a quite interesting. The host, Mike Brady, is very personable as well. Here at the "Fortress Flintlock" we call him "That nice young Mr. Ocean Liner!"
And note, Mike has the class and tradition of wearing a black tie as a sign of mourning. I thought I was the last one to do that.
Much has been made here in Memphis of the Isidor Straus history -- including the heroism they showed.
I still can't understand how someone with a MAE degree from Princeton didn't understand that carbon-fiber composite is not stable in compression as it is in tension (in wound pressure tanks and the like).
Possibly you have read reports about the danger to those exploring the submerged Titanic. Here is an angle, edited and compressed from today's Jerusalem Post, that may be of interest. Further info is on the website www,jpost.com.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter