Random Picture Thread

[kach22i]

http://www.whirlingpool.com/isetta/s...ool/custom.htm

[antonfourie]

Dude where do you find all these pics ...your search ability way surpasses mine

[marshmat]

It's hard to tell, with any shipwreck, exactly what happened. We will likely never know the exact sequence of events that led to the Edmund Fitzgerald's demise.
The Great Lakes are considerably more treacherous for big ships than one might expect. Lake Superior can brew up low-hurricane force winds; Lake Erie is shallow enough in many places that in mid-lake, a big freighter can actually hit the bottom in a wave trough, then take on water with the next crest and never re-surface. A 200-250 metre ship, drawing less than eight metres, can encounter in a Great Lakes storm, waves of over 15m height in only 30m of water. Scary.

[longliner45]

yes and with fresh water and cold dense air from the north and being shallow,,,,,very dangerous indeed,,sailing on the great lakes is not to be taken lightly

[boltonprofiles]

Hey Kach - do you think the whirlwind in it's distributer cap uses a ROTOR arm?....................

Paul.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by boltonprofiles

Hey Kach - do you think the whirlwind in it's distributer cap uses a ROTOR arm?....................

Paul.

I bet the blade turns from the force of the air and this little car might be able to take someone's head off. It does look cute though.

[SamSam]

Originally Posted by marshmat

It's hard to tell, with any shipwreck, exactly what happened. We will likely never know the exact sequence of events that led to the Edmund Fitzgerald's demise.
The Great Lakes are considerably more treacherous for big ships than one might expect. Lake Superior can brew up low-hurricane force winds; Lake Erie is shallow enough in many places that in mid-lake, a big freighter can actually hit the bottom in a wave trough, then take on water with the next crest and never re-surface. A 200-250 metre ship, drawing less than eight metres, can encounter in a Great Lakes storm, waves of over 15m height in only 30m of water. Scary.

The following quote came from here...
http://info.detnews.com/history/stor...ategory=events
"There was never a definitive report on the cause of the Fitzgerald wreck. A Coast Guard report suggesting that the hatches had not been closed properly was rejected. Popular speculation held that in passing so close to the Caribou Island shoal, the extra three foot's depth load allowed the hull to scrape the shoals whose depth was misreported on navigational charts at the time. Some believe that the towering rolling waves caused the steamer to break in two."
I saw a special on the tube about the sinking. It was a few years ago so it's sort of vague but I believe the Canadien charts were correct on the shoal's depth but the American charts, which for this particular shoal (a real small one, maybe in Canadien waters) we didn't actually go poke around and verify but used Canadas information, somehow misinterpreted the depth posted on the Canadien charts so it was shallower than stated. The huge waves lowered the ship onto the shoal, lifted it off, shortly thereafter the ship started listing and sank.
The improperly latched hatch theory pissed off the families in its implication of negligence, incompetence, etc. It had been used for 30 years with no previous problems.
Another theory had the ship bridging two waves and snapping in two, but the wreck doesn't show the signs of destruction that would leave.
A conspirancy theory has the E Fitz and it's sister ship lengthend by the owners to 729 feet. The results were problamatic and within 2 years the sister ship was scrapped, the defective E Fitz was kept going to recoup some of the loss. A coverup followed.
Here's an 'official' site with a list of theories...
http://www.ssefo.com/
http://www.ssefo.com/info/theories.html
I go with the bad chart theory, mainly because I can't imagine anything untrue on TV. Sam

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by SamSam

.... A Coast Guard report suggesting that the hatches had not been closed properly was rejected..... The improperly latched hatch theory pissed off the families in its implication of negligence, incompetence, etc....

The National Transportation Safety Board doesn't insist on the improperly latched hatch theory, but it states:
"The Safety Board analyzed the structure of the FITZGERALD’s hatch covers to determine the forces necessary to cause their failure. The analysis assessed several possible failure modes and several possible draft conditions caused by flooding of either the cargo hold, the tunnel, or the ballast tanks. The results of the analysis indicated that boarding seas could have induced sufficient stresses to cause the catastrophic failure of one or more of the hatch covers when the FITZGERALD’s freeboard was reduced by the flooding. The resulting catastrophic structural failure would have allowed rapid massive flooding of the cargo hold."

Also:
"Because of the weather conditions following the sinking of the FITZGERALD and because the wreckage was lying on the bottom of Lake Superior in 530 feet of water, a comprehensive examination of the damage to the FITZGERALD was not undertaken until May 1976. At that time, a task force was formed, including representatives from the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage, the Naval Undersea Center, and Seaward, Inc. of Falls Church, Virginia, an engineering consultant firm under contract to the U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage to make a visual survey of the wreckage using the USN CURV III System under contract to the USCG. The CURV III is an unmanned, deep-diving vehicle controlled from the surface and capable of television and still photography. This vehicle made 12 dives with a total of 56 hours 5 minutes bottom time and recorded 43,255 feet of videotape and 985 still color photographs."

And:
"There was extensive damage to the forward deckhouse and there were several holes in the bow shell plating. The rest of the shell plating extending back to the rupture was intact. The No. 1 hatch cover was entirely inside the No. 1 hatch and showed indications of buckling from external loading. Sections of the coaming in way of the No. 1 hatch were fractured and buckled inward. The No. 2 hatch cover was missing and the coaming on the No. 2 hatch was fractured and buckled. Hatches Nos. 3 and 4 were covered with mud; however, one corner of hatch cover No. 3 could be seen in place. Hatch cover No. 5 was missing. A series of 16 consecutive hatch cover clamps were observed on the No. 5 hatch coaming. Of this series, the first and eighth were distorted or broken. All of the 14 other clamps were undamaged and in the open position. The No. 6 hatch was open and a hatch cover was standing on end vertically in the hatch. The hatch covers were missing from hatches Nos. 7 and 8 and both coamings were fractured and severely distorted. The bow section abruptly ended just aft of hatch No. 8 and the deck plating was ripped up from the separation to the forward end of hatch No. 7."

Finally:
"Safety Board investigators considered the possibility that flooding resulted from a grounding which ruptured the hull plating in the area of some ballast tanks, but rejected this possibility for the following reasons:

A reconstruction of the FITZGERALD’s most probable trackline shows her path to be about 3 miles from the nearest position where grounding could have occurred.

No gouges, scraps, fractures, indentations, or other indications of grounding were visible on the exposed bottom plating on the after section of the wreckage. These observations were made during a close examination of the exposed bottom plating by underwater television from the CURV III. Damage to the bottom plating of a vessel from grounding on boulders in the rocky shoal north of Caribou Island during the severe sea conditions would probably have extended into the bottom plating of the stern section.

The FITZGERALD’s full speed was reported to be 16.3 mph. At this speed, it was impossible for the FITZGERALD to pass through her 1520 position, as determined by the ANDERSON from radar observations, and reach the nearest position at which grounding could occur by 1530. Although the list was not reported until 1530, the Safety Board concludes that topside damage occurred before 1520 and that the list was caused by flooding through the topside damage for a period of time. Even if massive damage could have been sustained at 1530 and instantaneous flooding could have occurred, it is unlikely that the FITZGERALD would have instantly reported the damage. If an immediate report had been made it probably would have mentioned damage more serious than just a list, the loss of a rail, and damage to the vents."

Cheers

[SamSam]

Guillermo,
There's no telling what really happened. A combination of two or three theories sounds likely. It is handy how the government dismisses witnesses statements as to the proximity of the ship to the shoals and don't mention their issuance of faulty charts. The only certainty is the Great Lakes can get ugly, ships can sink and people die. Sam

[Guillermo]

Sam:
At the bottom of the Board's Report:

"Dissenting Opinion of Philip A. Hogue, Member:
The most probable cause of the sinking of the SS EDMUND FITZGERALD in Lake Superior on 10 November 1975, was a shoaling which first generated a list, the loss of two air vents, and a fence wire. Secondarily, within a period of 3 to 4 hours, an undetected, progressive, massive flooding of the cargo hold resulted in a total loss of buoyancy from which, diving into a wall of water, the FITZGERALD never recovered...."

Yeap, the only certainty is the one you mention.
But the investigation is a most interesting piece of forensic engineering. Isn't it?

[longliner45]

I thought she want down in lake erie,,,,,am I wrong? longliner

[marshmat]

The Fitzgerald went down in Lake Superior, Nov. 10 1975, about 15 nm from Whitefish Bay.

I've noticed in the photos of the ship that she was somewhat longer and lower than most lakers... fully loaded, her freeboard looks to be a lot less than on most of the lakers we see around L. Ontario. (All lakers are limited to ~8 metres draught.) Waves big enough to repeatedly break over the coamings- quite possible in a Superior storm- could easily have done some damage to the hatches, regardless of how strong or well-secured they were.

I wouldn't be surprised if the charts or grounding were partly to blame. Water levels in the Great Lakes fluctuate several metres over the course of a few years, and there are many regions where charts exist but are not very detailed. A laker draws about 8 m; there are places where they must run in channels only 10-12 m deep. Add huge waves to that and, if you're caught in a trough over a rock or reef, your ship will get holed pretty bad (if it doesn't begin to break up). These are treacherous waters in moderately bad weather, let alone a November gale.

[kach22i]

About half this information posted is new to me, nice work guys.

[DanishBagger]

Heh, take a look at this:

http://diddly.com/random/

That one is a google random picture-thingy. It's quite fun to play with. But, do notice that if you're easily offended, that because it is indeed random, when you click on the "show me some pictures" you might get one.

It's a great little nifty thing, though.

[SamSam]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Yeap, the only certainty is the one you mention.
But the investigation is a most interesting piece of forensic engineering. Isn't it?

Also what's amazing is the power of song. Who would know anything about it except for Mr. Lightfoots tune? Sam