All About Heiwa's nonsense thread

Quote from: Heiwa on September 19, 2022, 12:30:54 PM

You really have to study how the CE design prevents oil spills in all sorts of incidents without pumps and electric power.

Perhaps you should have built a prototype that could have demonstrated the the USCG how "the CE design prevents oil spills in all sorts of incidents without pumps and electric power."  After all, actions speak louder than words.

You should visit my web site about CE model tests, etc. INTERTANKO also liked it.

And then the oil is transferred to the CE top side collision protection tanks.

So do tell me how you transfer oil to higher tanks without pumps.
And those tanks need to be empty to be able to pump oil into them. So your tanker is running half full all the time, except when there is a failure, provided its not a big failure.

Anyone using your tankers with a full load will be contravening safety. Anyone using your tankers safely (Safely in the right conditions that is) can only use half of the tankers capacity.

Literally no upside to your design.

You keep referring to some spam site, I presume its because you dont have an answer to these problems.

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2022, 04:11:44 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 19, 2022, 12:30:54 PM

You really have to study how the CE design prevents oil spills in all sorts of incidents without pumps and electric power.

Perhaps you should have built a prototype that could have demonstrated the the USCG how "the CE design prevents oil spills in all sorts of incidents without pumps and electric power."  After all, actions speak louder than words.

You should visit my web site about CE model tests, etc. INTERTANKO also liked it.

No.  I don't care about model tests.  Real world tests are much more compelling.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 19, 2022, 08:07:58 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2022, 04:11:44 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 19, 2022, 12:30:54 PM

You really have to study how the CE design prevents oil spills in all sorts of incidents without pumps and electric power.

Perhaps you should have built a prototype that could have demonstrated the the USCG how "the CE design prevents oil spills in all sorts of incidents without pumps and electric power."  After all, actions speak louder than words.

You should visit my web site about CE model tests, etc. INTERTANKO also liked it.

No.  I don't care about model tests.  Real world tests are much more compelling.

Of course. This IMO committee I was a member of 1990/7 looked at 100's of (single) hull collisions and groundings and associated spills to establish the details of structural damages, etc. And then new rules were developed. The idea was to put the protection where the damages were located and to arrange the structure to minimize accidental oil outflow (spills). And then the CE tanker design was developed and approved according to these rules. US OPA 90 DH tankers were also checked according to the Rules and we found that they spilled more oil than CE, etc. USCG was member of our committee! 
The main problem of DH is damages due to cracks of all kinds so the DH ballast spaces are filled with oil. There is no oil spill but to enter and clean the slippery and gas filled tanks are difficult. I always refuse it. If you are stupid to work on a DH tanker, you have to accept the risk. I stay away from such ventures. Etc, etc. Thanks for your interest in safety at sea and such nonsense.

Blah, blah, blah.

So you admit that you never conducted any real world tests on your CE design.  Good to know.

US OPA 90 DH tankers were also checked according to the Rules and we found that they spilled more oil than CE, etc.

No they weren't shown to spill more. I've looked at the reports. That's just an out-and-out lie.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2022, 07:10:27 PM

US OPA 90 DH tankers were also checked according to the Rules and we found that they spilled more oil than CE, etc.

No they weren't shown to spill more. I've looked at the reports. That's just an out-and-out lie.

Sorry. US OPA 90 collision protection is much worse than CE (as 80% of collision damages are located above waterline, etc).

Quote from: Stash on September 20, 2022, 07:27:41 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2022, 07:10:27 PM

US OPA 90 DH tankers were also checked according to the Rules and we found that they spilled more oil than CE, etc.

No they weren't shown to spill more. I've looked at the reports. That's just an out-and-out lie.

Sorry. US OPA 90 collision protection is much worse than CE (as 80% of collision damages are located above waterline, etc).

Sorry, that's nowhere in any report.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2022, 07:36:14 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 20, 2022, 07:27:41 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2022, 07:10:27 PM

US OPA 90 DH tankers were also checked according to the Rules and we found that they spilled more oil than CE, etc.

No they weren't shown to spill more. I've looked at the reports. That's just an out-and-out lie.

Sorry. US OPA 90 collision protection is much worse than CE (as 80% of collision damages are located above waterline, etc).

Sorry, that's nowhere in any report.

Of course not. But US OP90 DH tankers were law. And the law didn't allow better designs.

Sorry. US OPA 90 collision protection is much worse than CE (as 80% of collision damages are located above waterline, etc).

Probably not. But you keep failing to mention that when there is a collision below the waterline, or a grounding, then your design completely leaks out.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2022, 07:36:14 PM

Sorry. US OPA 90 collision protection is much worse than CE (as 80% of collision damages are located above waterline, etc).

Probably not. But you keep failing to mention that when there is a collision below the waterline, or a grounding, then your design completely leaks out.

No! In grounding ripping open the bottom, there is no oil spill, i.e 0 spill. All oil in bottom tanks is pushed up in the collision protection top wing tanks. Same actually  if a bottom cargo tank is breached in collision. Thanks for your interest in the CE design. It is still outlawed in US ports but approved by the IMO for all other ports.
Of course if the 0.2B wide top collision protection is breached, oil will spill, but probability of such incidents is 0.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 21, 2022, 03:41:57 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2022, 07:36:14 PM

Sorry. US OPA 90 collision protection is much worse than CE (as 80% of collision damages are located above waterline, etc).

Probably not. But you keep failing to mention that when there is a collision below the waterline, or a grounding, then your design completely leaks out.

No! In grounding ripping open the bottom, there is no oil spill, i.e 0 spill. All oil in bottom tanks is pushed up in the collision protection top wing tanks. Same actually  if a bottom cargo tank is breached in collision. Thanks for your interest in the CE design. It is still outlawed in US ports but approved by the IMO for all other ports.
Of course if the 0.2B wide top collision protection is breached, oil will spill, but probability of such incidents is 0.

Sounds like your design requires a lot of magical bullshit to work

Quote from: Heiwa on September 21, 2022, 05:17:35 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 21, 2022, 03:41:57 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2022, 07:36:14 PM

Sorry. US OPA 90 collision protection is much worse than CE (as 80% of collision damages are located above waterline, etc).

Probably not. But you keep failing to mention that when there is a collision below the waterline, or a grounding, then your design completely leaks out.

No! In grounding ripping open the bottom, there is no oil spill, i.e 0 spill. All oil in bottom tanks is pushed up in the collision protection top wing tanks. Same actually  if a bottom cargo tank is breached in collision. Thanks for your interest in the CE design. It is still outlawed in US ports but approved by the IMO for all other ports.
Of course if the 0.2B wide top collision protection is breached, oil will spill, but probability of such incidents is 0.

Sounds like your design requires a lot of magical bullshit to work

No it was just unanimously approved by the United Nations IMO September 1997, when I was there and was congratulated. The following week USCG informed the IMO that tankers built according to the CE concept could not enter US ports, etc.  But it is used elsewhere, I am told. 
Why do you get so upset about it?

No! In grounding ripping open the bottom, there is no oil spill, i.e 0 spill. All oil in bottom tanks is pushed up in the collision protection top wing tanks. Same actually  if a bottom cargo tank is breached in collision.

You forgot to mention that this only works if its in quiet seas. If its grounded, the oil will just leak out the bottom.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 21, 2022, 05:17:35 AM

No! In grounding ripping open the bottom, there is no oil spill, i.e 0 spill. All oil in bottom tanks is pushed up in the collision protection top wing tanks. Same actually  if a bottom cargo tank is breached in collision.

You forgot to mention that this only works if its in quiet seas. If its grounded, the oil will just leak out the bottom.

Pls study the CE info available on the net. The protection is excellent. Like the safety and the economy. Less steel and corrosion protection, etc, etc.

The paucity of information (ignoring your webshite) and the fact that zero CE ships appear to have been built, preclude any possible study.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 21, 2022, 08:51:08 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 21, 2022, 05:17:35 AM

No! In grounding ripping open the bottom, there is no oil spill, i.e 0 spill. All oil in bottom tanks is pushed up in the collision protection top wing tanks. Same actually  if a bottom cargo tank is breached in collision.

You forgot to mention that this only works if its in quiet seas. If its grounded, the oil will just leak out the bottom.

Pls study the CE info available on the net. The protection is excellent. Like the safety and the economy. Less steel and corrosion protection, etc, etc.

I have studied it. The only reference across the web stating that CE is better than double-hull is you.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 21, 2022, 08:51:08 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 21, 2022, 05:17:35 AM

No! In grounding ripping open the bottom, there is no oil spill, i.e 0 spill. All oil in bottom tanks is pushed up in the collision protection top wing tanks. Same actually  if a bottom cargo tank is breached in collision.

You forgot to mention that this only works if its in quiet seas. If its grounded, the oil will just leak out the bottom.

Pls study the CE info available on the net. The protection is excellent. Like the safety and the economy. Less steel and corrosion protection, etc, etc.

Why study anything?  I can tell everything I need to know by looking out of my window.

His design works on the premise of

"trust me Bro, I know it works because I saw it out my window"

His design works on the premise of

"trust me Bro, I know it works because I saw it out my window"

I always start my day by opening my eyes and later look out of the bedroom window to see what happens outside. I have a great view of the sea from my window. Today 28 years ago a ship was sunk by terrorists, >1000 died and the owners blamed it on heavy weather and hidden design fault. Guess what ship it was!

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 28, 2022, 04:52:15 AM

His design works on the premise of

"trust me Bro, I know it works because I saw it out my window"

I always start my day by opening my eyes and later look out of the bedroom window to see what happens outside. I have a great view of the sea from my window. Today 28 years ago a ship was sunk by terrorists, >1000 died and the owners blamed it on heavy weather and hidden design fault. Guess what ship it was!

The MS Estonia. What do I win?

I always start my day by opening my eyes and later look out of the bedroom window to see what happens outside. I have a great view of the sea from my window. Today 28 years ago a ship was sunk by terrorists, >1000 died and the owners blamed it on heavy weather and hidden design fault. Guess what ship it was!

I dont know this one.

Where you the terrorists, owners or the one responsible for the weather?

I think Heiwa was the terrorist, currently residing in France because there's no extradition to Egypt where he would be arrested like the captain of the ship he worked on that sank.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 28, 2022, 04:52:15 AM

His design works on the premise of

"trust me Bro, I know it works because I saw it out my window"

I always start my day by opening my eyes and later look out of the bedroom window to see what happens outside. I have a great view of the sea from my window. Today 28 years ago a ship was sunk by terrorists, >1000 died and the owners blamed it on heavy weather and hidden design fault. Guess what ship it was!

The CE Tanker.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 28, 2022, 05:40:19 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 28, 2022, 04:52:15 AM

His design works on the premise of

"trust me Bro, I know it works because I saw it out my window"

I always start my day by opening my eyes and later look out of the bedroom window to see what happens outside. I have a great view of the sea from my window. Today 28 years ago a ship was sunk by terrorists, >1000 died and the owners blamed it on heavy weather and hidden design fault. Guess what ship it was!

The MS Estonia. What do I win?

Your answer is right. Why the perfect ship sank is still discussed. To protect the terrorists the Swedish government suggests heavy weather and a hidden defect, bla, bla, bli. I just suggested the ship was sunk by sabotage.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on September 28, 2022, 05:44:54 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 28, 2022, 05:40:19 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 28, 2022, 04:52:15 AM

His design works on the premise of

"trust me Bro, I know it works because I saw it out my window"

I always start my day by opening my eyes and later look out of the bedroom window to see what happens outside. I have a great view of the sea from my window. Today 28 years ago a ship was sunk by terrorists, >1000 died and the owners blamed it on heavy weather and hidden design fault. Guess what ship it was!

The MS Estonia. What do I win?

Your answer is right. Why the perfect ship sank is still discussed. To protect the terrorists the Swedish government suggests heavy weather and a hidden defect, bla, bla, bli. I just suggested the ship was sunk by sabotage.

Perfect ship?  No such thing.

As for it being discussed, that's because there are conspiracy theorists like yourself that post insane drivel like terrorists.

Quote from: Heiwa on October 04, 2022, 09:25:48 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on September 28, 2022, 05:44:54 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 28, 2022, 05:40:19 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 28, 2022, 04:52:15 AM

His design works on the premise of

"trust me Bro, I know it works because I saw it out my window"

I always start my day by opening my eyes and later look out of the bedroom window to see what happens outside. I have a great view of the sea from my window. Today 28 years ago a ship was sunk by terrorists, >1000 died and the owners blamed it on heavy weather and hidden design fault. Guess what ship it was!

The MS Estonia. What do I win?

Your answer is right. Why the perfect ship sank is still discussed. To protect the terrorists the Swedish government suggests heavy weather and a hidden defect, bla, bla, bli. I just suggested the ship was sunk by sabotage.

Perfect ship?  No such thing.

As for it being discussed, that's because there are conspiracy theorists like yourself that post insane drivel like terrorists.

According to experts of three nations M/S Estonia was perfect and just sank 1994 by an enormous wave impact that nobody noticed, etc. I just recommend since 1994 that the ship was bad. It was one reason I didn't buy it, when the owner went bankrupt. I know the ship sank as part of insurance fraud.

Yes. Ship was bad so it sank in bad weather. It happens

Yes. Ship was bad so it sank in bad weather. It happens

No, in this case the rotten ships was sunk by sabotage.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on October 05, 2022, 04:46:53 AM

Yes. Ship was bad so it sank in bad weather. It happens

No, in this case the rotten ships was sunk by sabotage.

Wrong.

Neither the Estonia nor your shit CE Tanker Design were sabotaged.