|
|
23-01-2021, 00:59
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Norway
Boat: Fountaine pajot, Belize 43
Posts: 150
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
The chance of hitting a whale is much larger, but hopefully not as devastating as hitting a container.
Have had two close encounters in West Australia and mid Atlantic.
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 02:01
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: oriental
Boat: crowther trimaran 33
Posts: 4,414
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
hit a large (12ft x 6ft) floating metal container in the south china sea but it wasn't a shipping container.
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 02:45
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by scfoster
Meet my friend Archimedes. The gross tonnage is a factor displacement, which factors in the weight of everything on the ship. Each vessel has a max displacement, which accounts for all of those boxes stacked so high. So enclosed space, other than the weight of the plates, has no bearing on gross tonnage.
Regarding the loss of boxes, think of a bull whip. The velocity (and forces) at the end are a LOT higher than at the handle. Same goes for the containers (and restraint systems) at the top of the stack. The increase in losses, while affected by the number of storms, is due to ships leaving port at max capacity more frequently.
The simple answer is to slap some strain gauges on the restraints, with 3 axis gyro chips and measure what's going on up there. Once they have data, they can fix the problem, which it is.
|
Gross tonnage has nothing to do with displacement. With the availability of Google and Wikipedia there is no excuse for the promulgation of such ignorance, even by rank amateurs.
I would have thought it was obvious, port dues are paid to harbour and canal authorities.
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 03:04
|
#64
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoleo
"Pay Duers" to whom??
|
Harbour, government and canal authorities, to name a few.
Think of it this way, compare a large cruise ship, (big gross tonnage, small deadweight) to a VLCC (big deadweight, comparatively smaller gross tonnage). Authorities must have some way to create a reasonably level playing field to impose charges. A bit more complicated than a marina charging by LOA and beam.
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 04:40
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 2,845
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
It's 5:12, so let's see how fast we can address some of the more egregious points expressed about this expressly non-problem ---- and perhaps some about the real problems posed by the 'container method' of shipping.
For starters, as previously posted by several, the odds of having an 'interaction' are low enough to be classed as neglible for most; if knitting is not attractive, try hooking up with an agoraphobe.
As for 'cost' to shipping companies, the people who pay for the shipping insurance are the shippers, and by extension, the consumer.
There are appoximately 20 million containers in existence, so the loss of 2000 yearly is, what, .001% of the total? And that is if each container only make 1 trip a year, which is hardly the case since about 200 million are shipped a year.
Regarding the losses that do occur and their reasons, first some basics. A standard 40 container's volume would displace 128,000 pounds, the container itself weighs 8000 lbs, so an airtight container would have to be filled with more that 120,000 pounds to sink. The maximum weight for a 40 footer is 80,000 lbs, so it has, in effect, when fully loaded, 40,000 lbs of buoyancy.
This, combined with several other logistical factors, creates a plethora of 'problems'. As far as I know there are no strictly followed container-loading rules, or even guidelines ( I've loaded quite a few, with cargos ranging from floor-to-ceiling with low weight/high volume items like filters or boom sections, to high weight/ low volume items like drill tables, blowout preventers, traction motors or heavy equipment track.
When the delivery logistics (you can't unload half the ship to get to a container placed where the laws of physics dictate is it's most ideal position) combine with these variable load parameters, conditions can align to make container breakaway and loss much more likely. Say something like a 3 or 4 ton traction motor or rotary table, at the top of the stack because it's first off, loaded in a hurry by a clueless, or underpaid, or lazy, or vindictive, or whatever, worker starts slamming fore and aft or abeam in an extended high sea event and several containers or several stacks of containers go over the side. Those where the buoyancy goes negative will go down relatively quickly; those filled with packaged material might float for years.
Which ain't a problem for the ship owners, or the manufacturers, or even the poor suckers who pay for the 'privilege' of having their manufactured desires for manufactued items they're manipulated into believing they need 'cheaply' met.
'Cheaply' because it is anything but, considering, oh, I don't know, the offshoring of manufacturing, the establishment of 'aspirational' goals centered on possessions of little or dubious intrinsic value, or the singular goal of profit for the elite 'owners' deified by the corporo-capitalistic kleptocracy currently sweeping the world (NWO indeed).
And that's just for starters.
Losing a miniscule amount of containers over the side isn't a problem for anyone except the tiny amount of narcissistic world travelers who might someday encounter one, or perhaps someday, me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameehan
Gross tonnage has nothing to do with displacement. With the availability of Google and Wikipedia there is no excuse for the promulgation of such ignorance, even by rank amateurs.
I would have thought it was obvious, port dues are paid to harbour and canal authorities.
|
Indeed. Without "the availability of Google and Wikipedia", I might think that
'gross tonnage' means something like 'for a ship, the combined weight of both vessel and cargo', and that 'displacement' might mean something like 'for a ship, the amount of water displaced by the vessel'. Which, by both experience and experiment, I know is directly proportional to the total weight of the vessel.
Of course, if you mean that dockage or berthing fees are paid based on gross tonnage, that would make sense, but if that is the case I might have tried to enunciate my point more clearly...
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 06:21
|
#66
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard
It's 5:12, so let's see how fast we can address some of the more egregious points expressed about this expressly non-problem ---- and perhaps some about the real problems posed by the 'container method' of shipping.
For starters, as previously posted by several, the odds of having an 'interaction' are low enough to be classed as neglible for most; if knitting is not attractive, try hooking up with an agoraphobe.
As for 'cost' to shipping companies, the people who pay for the shipping insurance are the shippers, and by extension, the consumer.
There are appoximately 20 million containers in existence, so the loss of 2000 yearly is, what, .001% of the total? And that is if each container only make 1 trip a year, which is hardly the case since about 200 million are shipped a year.
Regarding the losses that do occur and their reasons, first some basics. A standard 40 container's volume would displace 128,000 pounds, the container itself weighs 8000 lbs, so an airtight container would have to be filled with more that 120,000 pounds to sink. The maximum weight for a 40 footer is 80,000 lbs, so it has, in effect, when fully loaded, 40,000 lbs of buoyancy.
This, combined with several other logistical factors, creates a plethora of 'problems'. As far as I know there are no strictly followed container-loading rules, or even guidelines ( I've loaded quite a few, with cargos ranging from floor-to-ceiling with low weight/high volume items like filters or boom sections, to high weight/ low volume items like drill tables, blowout preventers, traction motors or heavy equipment track.
When the delivery logistics (you can't unload half the ship to get to a container placed where the laws of physics dictate is it's most ideal position) combine with these variable load parameters, conditions can align to make container breakaway and loss much more likely. Say something like a 3 or 4 ton traction motor or rotary table, at the top of the stack because it's first off, loaded in a hurry by a clueless, or underpaid, or lazy, or vindictive, or whatever, worker starts slamming fore and aft or abeam in an extended high sea event and several containers or several stacks of containers go over the side. Those where the buoyancy goes negative will go down relatively quickly; those filled with packaged material might float for years.
Which ain't a problem for the ship owners, or the manufacturers, or even the poor suckers who pay for the 'privilege' of having their manufactured desires for manufactued items they're manipulated into believing they need 'cheaply' met.
'Cheaply' because it is anything but, considering, oh, I don't know, the offshoring of manufacturing, the establishment of 'aspirational' goals centered on possessions of little or dubious intrinsic value, or the singular goal of profit for the elite 'owners' deified by the corporo-capitalistic kleptocracy currently sweeping the world (NWO indeed).
And that's just for starters.
Losing a miniscule amount of containers over the side isn't a problem for anyone except the tiny amount of narcissistic world travelers who might someday encounter one, or perhaps someday, me.
All that detail is very impressive but my point is that the situation would not even arise with better ship design, albeit enforced. Can you imagine a crude oil or chemical tanker being allowed to lose some of their cargo with no more than a shrug of the shoulders from the authorities?
Also, quite a few of containers carried on deck contain “hazardous cargo”, the potential damage to the environment if these go overboard is massive
Indeed. Without "the availability of Google and Wikipedia", I might think that
'gross tonnage' means something like 'for a ship, the combined weight of both vessel and cargo', and that 'displacement' might mean something like 'for a ship, the amount of water displaced by the vessel'. Which, by both experience and experiment, I know is directly proportional to the total weight of the vessel.
Of course, if you mean that dockage or berthing fees are paid based on gross tonnage, that would make sense, but if that is the case I might have tried to enunciate my point more clearly...
|
Quick search of Wikipedia, quote, “Tonnage (volume) should not be confused with displacement (weight of ship)”
Hence weight of cargo (inc bunkers, stores etc) ie deadweight, equals displacement minus lightship weight.
Stay safe, amigo.
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 11:34
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, New York
Boat: Dufour Safari 27'
Posts: 1,909
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by NPCampbell
It would only float if it was filled with ducks or witches.
|
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science? My liege! I would be honoured to join your quest for the holy grail. In this case, the holy grail is a container system that doesn't lose the occasional container AND is cost effective.
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 11:56
|
#68
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Plaza Ignacio Antonio Liaño, Numero Dos -Primero Izquierda,Rota 11520 (CADIZ) SPAIN
Posts: 132
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bob
The flotation of a container is dependant on the contents, not the structure of the container. Containers are not watertight, they will sink, albeit slowly, when empty.
|
Just what the already dying oceans of the world DO NOT NEED is more junk on the bottom of the oceans.
Senior Chief, U.S.Navy, Retired
|
|
|
23-01-2021, 12:51
|
#69
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: home town Wellington, NZ and Savusavu Fiji
Boat: Reinke S10 & Raven 26
Posts: 1,230
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
There are thousands of other floating things to hit. Floating logs are a big hazard. Old refrigerators and freezers from fly tippers are more common than they have any right to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatman61
I've never unloaded a container with a wooden floor.. and I've unloaded a few as a fork truck driver...
|
We’ve a few with plywood; floor and sides to export photo copiers. The floor because copiers have wheels and it makes loading easier (no forklift available) and sides to facilitate building 2 levels so we could fill those puppies with more stuff. No point in transporting air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout
Like having all containers made to have holes drilled in them. Simple and effective. Four large holes in the bottom and some type of low cost air release valve in the side will see that they become a quick new deposit to Davey Jones locker.
|
Containers are not airtight, water gets in. The problem of floating is caused as a result of whatever is packed inside. For example let’s say a container is packed with plastic bottles of water or soy sauce or oil. There will be around 2,200 cartons, each containing 12 bottles. Bottles are not filled to the top in the bottling process, nor are most bottles vacuum packed, that gap at the top is air. And of course the plastic itself floats. I used an example of water bottles too because fresh water floats on salt water. and so a water bottle will never sink. Water in bottles will never merge. But take a look around the supermarket and notice all bottles and jars have a gap (yes some foodstuffs are vacuum packed, but most just have preservatives and an expiry date).
Of course there are forum members who’ll who to that liquids are sometimes shipped in larger volume containers, such as 4 x 200 litre drums per pallet, IBCs (intermediate bulk containers are to 1,250 litres) and of course flexi tanks that entirely fill a 20 foot container with about 25,000 litres. The bigger issue to the shippers at each end is handling capability. So sending a container packed with flexi tank to Boatie is useless if all he has available is a forklift.
Of course like all floating things many creatures take the opportunity to make a home, plus the sun and weather break things down. Eventually all containers that don't beach will end up in Davy Jones Locker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science? My liege! I would be honoured to join your quest for the holy grail.
|
Please, please I want to join the trip. We can chase lighthouses on our trusty steeds and perhaps visit Alice and her friends. Will I need to bring my own duck in case we come across what seems to be a witch?
__________________
Grant Mc
The cure for everything is salt water: sweat, tears or the sea. Yeah right, I wish.
|
|
|
24-01-2021, 10:22
|
#70
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Channel Islands, CA
Boat: 1962 Columbia 29 MK 1 #37
Posts: 14,302
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
I am not sure how we can calculate with much precision the probability of encountering a floating container. But we can say that they are more likely to be found near where they were just offloaded, in a shipping lane, and will be dragged along by the local current, if there is one. So we can probably roughly estimate where one is more likely to find them, especially if the dump spot/date is carefully recorded and the current is identified. It will kind of be like NASA keeping track of all the space junk. I wonder, does anyone know if this info is available? Besides fire aboard, hitting an unforgiving, heavy, hunk of metal is a top concern, and I am not even sailing near a accidental dump zone. I came breathtakingly close to hitting a whale once, but a whale has no sharp edges.
__________________
DL
Pythagoras
1962 Columbia 29 MKI #37
|
|
|
24-01-2021, 10:31
|
#71
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, New York
Boat: Dufour Safari 27'
Posts: 1,909
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don C L
I am not sure how we can calculate with much precision the probability of encountering a floating container. But we can say that they are more likely to be found near where they were just offloaded, in a shipping lane, and will be dragged along by the local current, if there is one. So we can probably roughly estimate where one is more likely to find them, especially if the dump spot/date is carefully recorded and the current is identified. It will kind of be like NASA keeping track of all the space junk. I wonder, does anyone know if this info is available? Besides fire aboard, hitting an unforgiving, heavy, hunk of metal is a top concern, and I am not even sailing near a accidental dump zone. I came breathtakingly close to hitting a whale once, but a whale has no sharp edges.
|
If the boat was a GRP (fiberglass) vessel it might not have survived. Oops!
https://www.sail-world.com/Australia...rce=duckduckgo
|
|
|
24-01-2021, 11:15
|
#72
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Madeira Park, BC
Boat: Custom steel, 41' LOD
Posts: 1,372
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by impulsive19
According to a recent article in Sail magazine - at least three of the participants in the Vendee around the World race have had their hulls pierced by UFO's (unidentified floating objects) and had to be rescued or drop out of the competition.
|
Where? Ice?
|
|
|
26-01-2021, 05:15
|
#73
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Near water
Posts: 90
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
For those concerned about flotsam and jetsam, forward looking SONAR might offer a few seconds of warning - in deeper water. Echopilot claims a 500m range on its higher end model. That would certainly be helpful in some situations, but not all.
https://www.yachtingworld.com/gear-r...fishing-125892
|
|
|
26-01-2021, 05:36
|
#74
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,909
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bob
The flotation of a container is dependant on the contents, not the structure of the container. Containers are not watertight, they will sink, albeit slowly, when empty.
|
Exactly. A container full of ping pong balls, isn't sinking any time soon. One full of safes, or engine blocks, not so much.
__________________
Founding member of the controversial Calypso rock band, Guns & Anchors!
|
|
|
26-01-2021, 10:05
|
#75
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Channel Islands, CA
Boat: Jeanneau 41 DS
Posts: 559
|
Re: Container ship dumps containers in Pacific
These floating containers are vital to the people of underdeveloped countries. How else can they get their free Nike shoes unless one of those containers fall over board...open up ...and let those shoes land on their shores.
They also provide a reef system and if they float little fishes can use it as shelter. Someone just mentioned how they caught a big fish hiding under a log between the Galapagos and the mainland.
The glass is always half full...
Abe
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|
|