Container Ship Collapses the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore

So why do these same professionals disagree? How many of them are employed by the government? Believe what you want. The performance of these same scientists during the pandemic should give anyone cause for doubt in them.
You always find some disagreement but this is why things like peer review and consensus matters.

Science is not some geeks in white lab coats punching something into the Univac/Brianiac Super Duper computer and getting any answer in a read out. Science is literrally mucking around on the very frontiers of ignorance and methodically testing a proposition to see it holds up.

The Lab leak which was mooted did not hold up.

No matter how hard one strains on that particular gnat, trying to get some trivial concession to declare victory, it simply did not.

In fairness however, China is it's own worst enemy on this. The semi and the completely illegal wet markets which are made to order for zoonotics to jump to man are embarrassing simply because they exist and continue to exist, and the Government won't let observers in to check things out at the lab in Wuhan.

Lack of transparency like that breeds mistrust.

A lack of science literacy doesn't help either. We live in a generation which really has no idea how science works but which often confuses uninformed opinion mixed in with logical fallacies or every stripe as being just as valid as the approach of careful evaluation and testing by an expert as equally valid. In other words,

"Mah uh-pin-yin is as good as yer eddy-cation!" (It's not!)

You're seeing much the same being done right here with the Dali vs Key Bridge contest. Armchair admirals posing as "Experts" were posting nonsense (Like "every container ship has multiply redundant backups and back up propulsion in case of a casualty in the mains.")

They don't.

But these people out there are spewing that garbage and the uninformed and semi -informed are lapping it up.
 
Virologists, scientists and medical professionals who have spent decades studying and researching.
The results are often dependent on who's funding the research. There are websites that you can view all the so called peer reviewed scientific papers that have been recalled/canceled. About half for simple data errors that were honest mistakes. But a lot for outright fraud. I have no doubt that it was a lab leak. Labs doing research on bio weapons is no secret. They claim its only for defensive purposes but if one believes that I have a bridge to sell. Just look at recent history. When Russia invaded Ukraine the U.S. intelligence agencies scrambled like hell to secure the labs they were funding there. Why? You would send doctors to prevent an outbreak which they claimed. Not a bunch of spies. But many people will believe whatever of the powers to be tell them. I find that sad. I've read the papers from the Biopreparat that were released when the Soviets broke apart. It was and is scary. But all sides do it. They've just polished their act a little bit.
 
The results are often dependent on who's funding the research.
Nonsense

If that was accurate, Anti-vaccination groups which fund studies to show that vaccines cause autism would get it all their way, but what happened has been the exact polar opposite. That, and the peer review as often as not comes from rivals as well as people who are blinded as to the source of a study as well as rivals who move in as well.

Scienitists don't just test a proposition, they actively crash test it to see if it holds up.

>>There are websites that you can view all the so called peer reviewed scientific papers that have been recalled/canceled.<<

And this is a bad thing because why?
This attempt at a "gotcha" is actually science doing exactly what it's supposed to do: Hold BAD science accountable. It happens every day. You NEVER see that with conspiracy theories, especially ones which are ideologically based, and if anybody here thinks the people who sow disinformation and misinformation are not about the money, you are just dead nuts wrong.
 
I quit believing most scientists when they became liberal politicians. Hello Dr. Fauci.

I suspect you are taking issue with the response rather than the science. Many disliked being confined to their homes and not being able to work with the subsequent financial stress that this created, or felt they were being forced to have the vaccine. A large number of people simply didn't like being told what to do by government. These issues should be kept independent of the science behind the virus itself.
 
I suspect you are taking issue with the response rather than the science.

I'm afraid he's made it about the ideology. When people start invoking labels as pejoratives, such as "Liberal" or "Conservative" or names of people who have been ruthlessly demonized (Dr. Fauci) it's about the ideology.

What a disappointment.
 
Nonsense

If that was accurate, Anti-vaccination groups which fund studies to show that vaccines cause autism would get it all their way, but what happened has been the exact polar opposite. That, and the peer review as often as not comes from rivals as well as people who are blinded as to the source of a study as well as rivals who move in as well.

Scienitists don't just test a proposition, they actively crash test it to see if it holds up.

>>There are websites that you can view all the so called peer reviewed scientific papers that have been recalled/canceled.<<

And this is a bad thing because why?
This attempt at a "gotcha" is actually science doing exactly what it's supposed to do: Hold BAD science accountable. It happens every day. You NEVER see that with conspiracy theories, especially ones which are ideologically based, and if anybody here thinks the people who sow disinformation and misinformation are not about the money, you are just dead nuts wrong.
I'll just say I couldn't disagree more on this. We seem to be diametrically opposed on how we receive and process information. Which is fine. Don't take my posts personally. I respect your posts and take on things. On this matter we differ. I have to call things the way I see them. Any push back I welcome. I've admitted many times on this board that I have cynical nature. That's because I've been fooled too many times by so called experts. But that's on me. Fool me once....you know the rest.
 
I'll just say I couldn't disagree more on this. We seem to be diametrically opposed on how we receive and process information. Which is fine. Don't take my posts personally. I respect your posts and take on things. On this matter we differ. I have to call things the way I see them. Any push back I welcome. I've admitted many times on this board that I have cynical nature. That's because I've been fooled too many times by so called experts. But that's on me. Fool me once....you know the rest.
A healthy scepticism is an excellent thing to have in my opinion, but could you indulge me in a short scenario?

I was reading a blog on a website that specialises in selling and installing solar panels, and they had an interesting article on the now decommissioned Mohave generating station in Nevada.

The article mentioned that whilst this was considered a supercritical plant, the boilers were actually designed to run at a higher pressure than what they normally did in day to day operation. This was done to lower the overall energy production of the plant, creating a deficit in supply of electricity and thereby driving up prices.

One of the former engineers at the plant rebutted the article, stating that whilst the boilers were tested at a higher pressure than standard operating, this was only to ensure a good safety margin above the normal working pressure. He pointed to a devastating accident in 1985 where limits had been exceeded and a steam pipe ruptured. He produced a number of engineering diagrams, graphs and calculations to support his argument. Not having a background in engineering I didn't really understand them, but given he was working for the power company I think it is safe to assume that he was just part of the cover up. There is no doubt in my mind that the boilers could have been run at a higher pressure and produced more power, bringing down costs for consumers. I trust the article on the solar panel website over the engineer who worked at the generating station.
 
But I did watch another video about this incident from a ships engineer. Somebody that has actually done the job. His conclusion was at this point it was a common failure of the generator system. But he also said that to be sure there needs to be an investigation.

Video sounds really interesting, would you be able to link it? I thought it might be chief Makoi but he hasn't posted anything yet.
 
A healthy scepticism is an excellent thing to have in my opinion, but could you indulge me in a short scenario?

I was reading a blog on a website that specialises in selling and installing solar panels, and they had an interesting article on the now decommissioned Mohave generating station in Nevada.

The article mentioned that whilst this was considered a supercritical plant, the boilers were actually designed to run at a higher pressure than what they normally did in day to day operation. This was done to lower the overall energy production of the plant, creating a deficit in supply of electricity and thereby driving up prices.

One of the former engineers at the plant rebutted the article, stating that whilst the boilers were tested at a higher pressure than standard operating, this was only to ensure a good safety margin above the normal working pressure. He pointed to a devastating accident in 1985 where limits had been exceeded and a steam pipe ruptured. He produced a number of engineering diagrams, graphs and calculations to support his argument. Not having a background in engineering I didn't really understand them, but given he was working for the power company I think it is safe to assume that he was just part of the cover up. There is no doubt in my mind that the boilers could have been run at a higher pressure and produced more power, bringing down costs for consumers. I trust the article on the solar panel website over the engineer who worked at the generating station.
Very interesting post. I would like to read that article. I'll try to to answer the best I can in a simple manner that doesn't involve a lot of technical gobbly goop that many wouldn't understand. And in the interest of full disclosure I'll state up front that most steamers like myself find that when it comes to base load solar is a joke. Base load is what keeps the grid stable. Solar definitely has it uses. I'm building a back up solar system for my house as we speak. But for base load solar just wont work. To try and make that work everybody's electric bill would be 5 grand a month.
1. They called them boilers but they were not like a regular drum boiler. They were a series of tubes all connected in groups. There were super heater sections and reheater sections ect ect. Normal operating parameters were 5000 psi 1000 degree F. That was what was delivered to the high pressure turbines. The engineers actually called it "stuff" because it was almost a plasma. Then that steam went back to boiler tubes to be reheated and then delivered to the Low pressure turbines which operated around 750 degrees F and 3500 psi. It's been 12 years since I left there so my numbers might be off a little. It was the reheater line that failed that day. I was there that day and missed getting fried by about 15 mins or so. Not an Indiana Jones close call but close enough that I never liked being in that area again. But I had to because a lot of instruments I worked on were there.
2. The engineer was correct. All good systems are designed with a safety factor. What the solar guy said was flat out wrong. He actually got it backwards. Before the steam line failure they used to often run the plant maxed out above what was considered safe. It was determined that was contributing factor to the steam line coming apart. In those days we had the old control system which wasn't very good. I saw main steam temps as high as 1100 degrees. Swinging all over the place. And pressures unstable because of sloppy control valves. We had by today's standards enthalpy and entropy control circuits that were ancient. They often didn't trip when they were supposed too as I recall. To try and make the way we ran before understandable was like running your car engine red lined all time with rpm's. It will fail sooner and often. As far as the entropy and enthalpy control computers and how they worked if I told you I understood that with any degree of certainty I would be lying. The relay test tech's took care of those.
3. No we didn't curtail production to raise prices. After we upgraded to the new DCS control system we actually increased production. In fact the day we shut down for good we had never run better. In the old days if we stayed on line for 30 days the company would throw us a BBQ to celebrate. After we were getting run times of 90-100 days. That's because the tubes would get brittle and come apart. That's about the most you could get out of the tubes with the temps and pressures we ran at. Another thing...we were a regulated utility. What we were allowed to charge for the electricity was basically what it cost to produce it...essentially a wash. Where the company made its money was thru capital depreciation and other such financial wizardry which I still don't understand to this day.
4. What the engineer said about running above limits in the old days was correct. That was to get max power. The managers bonuses were partially determined by megawatt production. At least that's what I was told. But a major factor in the failure was excessive cycling. Hot cold hot cold ect ect. It would have been better to run 95% all the time than to cycle from hot to cold. The constant contraction expansion of the welds was what caused it to fail IMO.
5. Conspiracy. There is some truth about that. But not about production. There was some in my opinion but it was nothing like a Jason Bourne movie. It mostly involved legal matters and financial stuff. I know the people who got payouts from being injured had to sign NDA's. Again that's what I told. When the steam line blew the company told us if anybody took pictures they would be fired. Remember this was 20 years before smartphones. They couldn't control that these days. Also in the late 70's one of the station managers ask to have the welds x-rayed because of concerns he had. The company said no. He did it anyway and was fired. They tried to hide that fact but it came out anyway the way it was explained to me.
6. Solar. If your considering going solar for your house I can talk to you about that but that and any further discussion about my power plant we should probably move it to the off topic section. The mods might want to move this post too. I can give you my take on solar on whether its worth it or not. If have any further questions on this topic I'd be happy to answer any I can. We had no process control engineer on my station so we had to design and install many of our control systems. I know something about this stuff but at the end of the day I was a mere technician and not an engineer. Cheers.
P.S...a pic of the rupture that somebody snuck out.
23945-98a1b48356df25764d128b0a058e9087.jpg
 
What a disappointment.
Sorry to disappoint. I guess it’s the result of living 73 years in the real world where everything has become about politics. It seems you’d like to think that scientists are above the fray and are as pure as the wind driven snow. Sadly, I have not found that to be the case. The real disappointment is that there is no refuge from the taint of politics any longer.
 
Very interesting post. I would like to read that article. I'll try to to answer the best I can in a simple manner that doesn't involve a lot of technical gobbly goop that many wouldn't understand. And in the interest of full disclosure I'll state up front that most steamers like myself find that when it comes to base load solar is a joke. Base load is what keeps the grid stable. Solar definitely has it uses. I'm building a back up solar system for my house as we speak. But for base load solar just wont work. To try and make that work everybody's electric bill would be 5 grand a month.
1. They called them boilers but they were not like a regular drum boiler. They were a series of tubes all connected in groups. There were super heater sections and reheater sections ect ect. Normal operating parameters were 5000 psi 1000 degree F. That was what was delivered to the high pressure turbines. The engineers actually called it "stuff" because it was almost a plasma. Then that steam went back to boiler tubes to be reheated and then delivered to the Low pressure turbines which operated around 750 degrees F and 3500 psi. It's been 12 years since I left there so my numbers might be off a little. It was the reheater line that failed that day. I was there that day and missed getting fried by about 15 mins or so. Not an Indiana Jones close call but close enough that I never liked being in that area again. But I had to because a lot of instruments I worked on were there.
2. The engineer was correct. All good systems are designed with a safety factor. What the solar guy said was flat out wrong. He actually got it backwards. Before the steam line failure they used to often run the plant maxed out above what was considered safe. It was determined that was contributing factor to the steam line coming apart. In those days we had the old control system which wasn't very good. I saw main steam temps as high as 1100 degrees. Swinging all over the place. And pressures unstable because of sloppy control valves. We had by today's standards enthalpy and entropy control circuits that were ancient. They often didn't trip when they were supposed too as I recall. To try and make the way we ran before understandable was like running your car engine red lined all time with rpm's. It will fail sooner and often. As far as the entropy and enthalpy control computers and how they worked if I told you I understood that with any degree of certainty I would be lying. The relay test tech's took care of those.
3. No we didn't curtail production to raise prices. After we upgraded to the new DCS control system we actually increased production. In fact the day we shut down for good we had never run better. In the old days if we stayed on line for 30 days the company would throw us a BBQ to celebrate. After we were getting run times of 90-100 days. That's because the tubes would get brittle and come apart. That's about the most you could get out of the tubes with the temps and pressures we ran at. Another thing...we were a regulated utility. What we were allowed to charge for the electricity was basically what it cost to produce it...essentially a wash. Where the company made its money was thru capital depreciation and other such financial wizardry which I still don't understand to this day.
4. What the engineer said about running above limits in the old days was correct. That was to get max power. The managers bonuses were partially determined by megawatt production. At least that's what I was told. But a major factor in the failure was excessive cycling. Hot cold hot cold ect ect. It would have been better to run 95% all the time than to cycle from hot to cold. The constant contraction expansion of the welds was what caused it to fail IMO.
5. Conspiracy. There is some truth about that. But not about production. There was some in my opinion but it was nothing like a Jason Bourne movie. It mostly involved legal matters and financial stuff. I know the people who got payouts from being injured had to sign NDA's. Again that's what I told. When the steam line blew the company told us if anybody took pictures they would be fired. Remember this was 20 years before smartphones. They couldn't control that these days. Also in the late 70's one of the station managers ask to have the welds x-rayed because of concerns he had. The company said no. He did it anyway and was fired. They tried to hide that fact but it came out anyway the way it was explained to me.
6. Solar. If your considering going solar for your house I can talk to you about that but that and any further discussion about my power plant we should probably move it to the off topic section. The mods might want to move this post too. I can give you my take on solar on whether its worth it or not. If have any further questions on this topic I'd be happy to answer any I can. We had no process control engineer on my station so we had to design and install many of our control systems. I know something about this stuff but at the end of the day I was a mere technician and not an engineer. Cheers.
P.S...a pic of the rupture that somebody snuck out.
View attachment 114827


My apologies Steven, my post above was a hypothetical article, I was attempting to illustrate how I should have listened to the engineer who knew his stuff over the solar guys who clearly had a vested interest in trying to make the coal side look like a conspiracy!

Nevertheless your reply is fascinating, thank you for sharing your expertise on the plant. I don't have an engineering or technical background of this nature in the slightest but find these things very interesting. Was once given a tour of a local gas-fired power station in the 1990s before such things became off-limits and have been keen to know more ever since. Would definitely buy you several drinks sometime to hear more about your work at the generating station and your thoughts on Solar and how best integrated (or not!) into the grid.

Probably best in the off-topic section though as you mention, don't wish to derail this thread too much further!
 
Back
Top