Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Heiwa

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305
1
Heiwa doesn't understand how regulatory authority works in the USA.
In this case some USCG admiral informed that tankers certified according Marpol 13F i.e. my design could not enter US ports as they were a high risk to spill oil in accidents ... so it was better to stop them all together. Of course a US company had earlier offered to buy the rights of the concept a little earlier and was turned down. So we know how the regulatory authority works in the USA. It is just a question of money.

So your rebuttal to being accused of not understanding how regulations work is to... show that you are even more confused about how regulations work. Brilliant. I label this Exhibit A.

Who exactly turned down the offer to buy the rights? ???

It was a long time ago. A US oil company with famous board members wanted to buy my patents at a certain prize and they approached our US attorney about a deal, before the IMO approval. As my patents were not for sale, we turned down the offer via my attorney. The result was that USA told the IMO that tankers built according my concept could not enter US ports, etc, etc. http://heiwaco.com/news.htm

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: space tourism
« on: July 30, 2021, 06:03:43 PM »

3
Your design is shit. Single hull you say? Weak as piss

If it were any good it would be used. But it sucked. And you suck. So no one uses or cares about it
Hm, my design is good and was unanimously approved by all members of  the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997! And then USA informed oil tankers of my design could not visit US ports, a decision that  has been discussed in the US Congress where I testified. But I haven't seen any US laws to this effect. Anyway, to build something that cannot  be used in the USA is risky. I became well known and rich in the process and cannot really complain.

Heiwa doesn't understand how regulatory authority works in the USA.
In this case some USCG admiral informed that tankers certified according Marpol 13F i.e. my design could not enter US ports as they were a high risk to spill oil in accidents ... so it was better to stop them all together. Of course a US company had earlier offered to buy the rights of the concept a little earlier and was turned down. So we know how the regulatory authority works in the USA. It is just a question of money.

4
Your design is shit. Single hull you say? Weak as piss

If it were any good it would be used. But it sucked. And you suck. So no one uses or cares about it
Hm, my design is good and was unanimously approved by all members of  the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997! And then USA informed oil tankers of my design could not visit US ports, a decision that  has been discussed in the US Congress where I testified. But I haven't seen any US laws to this effect. Anyway, to build something that cannot  be used in the USA is risky. I became well known and rich in the process and cannot really complain.

5


All your claims are yours and yours alone. Please cite where the IMO stated that your design would spill less and cost less than the US OPA90 double hull tankers. That's nowhere to be found.
Or even where the IMO tacitly states that for your design to be approved by them it has to spill and cost less than the US OPA90 double hull tankers. As well, nowhere to be found.

As stated by the IMO, your design was approved "in principle" and as "equivalent" to the basic double hull requirement. Not surpassing it. Again false claims made by you and you alone. Typical.
Thanks for your interest in my work. Not the Moon/Mars trips Challenge (topic) but my oil tanker design that is approved by the IMO but not allowed in US ports. The IMO just do that after developing rules for safer navigation and better protection of the marine environment, e.g. to reduce oil spills. USA is the only country stopping tankers built as per IMO rules.

It is I that state that the my design spills less oil according to the IMO risks. Intertanko agreed. The prices of tankers vary a lot but as my single hull design requires less steel, welding, coating and piping compared to a double hull tanker, it is cheaper to build. And maintenance is easier. I explain it all at my popular web site. Maybe the Islamic Republic of Iran will build tankers of my design to transport oil to China. We will see.

It seems this thread has >1000 viewers/day right now. I wonder why?

6
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

Your Coulombi Egg tanker design, though impressive, wasn’t approved by the IMO as a "much better” or superior design to a double hull design. It was approved simply as an “acceptable alternative” and only in “principle”:

IMO MEPC OKs Coulombi Egg tanker design
Author: Neil Sinclair
1997/10/06


LONDON (CNI)—The Coulombi Egg tanker design, an alternative to the double hull, has been approved in principle by the International Maritime Organization's marine environment protection committee (MEPC), it was confirmed Monday.

The Coulombi Egg design is based on a series of centre and wing tanks, divided by horizontal bulkheads. Upper wing tanks form ballast tanks which act as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should lower tanks be fractured.

Although the MEPC has ruled that the Coulombi Egg is an acceptable alternative to the double hull design, its view is not shared by the US. It has said ships built to the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in US ports.


https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/1997/10/06/40203/imo-mepc-oks-coulombi-egg-tanker-design/
Thanks for your info. I was there at the IMO/London 1997, when the Coulombi Egg concept was fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc, and we celebrated until next day when USCG informed the IMO that furture Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports for ever. Life is full of surprises. What a fantastic and fast US decision.

I can't find anything where it says that the IMO stated that "the Coulombi Egg concept was "fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc". So as it stands, you are making a false claim.

Like I said, very impressive that your design was "approved". And it's a bummer that the US completely trumped the IMO which has lead to no builder wanting to take a very costly risk in building ship designs that could equal or even surpass double hulls. But the US had their reasons which are well documented. And not unfounded.
The IMO was never happy with its rule about double hull tankers and added a rule that other designs could be approved when fulfilling strict requirements. The kingdom of Sweden proposed the Coulombi Egg oil tanker design on my behalf and it was September 1997 unanimously approved to provide equivalent or better protection against oil spills than double hull.
See 3.28 of https://heiwaco.tripod.com/MEPC40report.pdf .
You cannot do better than that.

No where in the report does it state that.

Here's the entirety of what the report you referenced says about your design:

"Coulombi Egg" tanker design concept
3.28 The Committee approved the design concept of the "Coulombi Egg" tanker in principle, in
accordance with MARPOL 73/78 regulation I/13F(5) as an equivalent to the basic double hull
requirement. As a result, the Secretariat was instructed to issue an MEPC circular approving the design
concept, in principle, and including the description and diagram shown at annex 11 to BLG 2/15.

3.29 The delegation of the United States stated that it does not consider the "Coulombi Egg" tanker
design equivalent to the double hull design. The "Coulombi Egg" design was evaluated by the United
States in its study and report to the United States Congress on tank vessel designs and has not been
found acceptable as equivalent to double hulls. Therefore, tank vessels meeting the "Coulombi Egg"
design as an equivalent to the double hull design will not be allowed in United States ports.


Nowhere does it state that the "Coulombi Egg" design provided "better protection against oil spills than double hull," as you claim. That's your claim, not the IMO's so your IMO claim is false.
You haven't understood how the IMO Marpol rules works. Evidently any Coulombi Egg oil tanker must be approved/certified to fulfill the Marpol regulations according to the principles of my description of the design. To do that you must show that it spills less oil in accidents than allowed by the IMO. As my design spills less oil than any US OPA90 double hull tankers, it is of course better. It also costs less to build and maintain. In spite of this, such tankers cannot enter US ports. USCG refuses to discuss the matter.

7
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

Your Coulombi Egg tanker design, though impressive, wasn’t approved by the IMO as a "much better” or superior design to a double hull design. It was approved simply as an “acceptable alternative” and only in “principle”:

IMO MEPC OKs Coulombi Egg tanker design
Author: Neil Sinclair
1997/10/06


LONDON (CNI)—The Coulombi Egg tanker design, an alternative to the double hull, has been approved in principle by the International Maritime Organization's marine environment protection committee (MEPC), it was confirmed Monday.

The Coulombi Egg design is based on a series of centre and wing tanks, divided by horizontal bulkheads. Upper wing tanks form ballast tanks which act as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should lower tanks be fractured.

Although the MEPC has ruled that the Coulombi Egg is an acceptable alternative to the double hull design, its view is not shared by the US. It has said ships built to the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in US ports.


https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/1997/10/06/40203/imo-mepc-oks-coulombi-egg-tanker-design/
Thanks for your info. I was there at the IMO/London 1997, when the Coulombi Egg concept was fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc, and we celebrated until next day when USCG informed the IMO that furture Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports for ever. Life is full of surprises. What a fantastic and fast US decision.

I can't find anything where it says that the IMO stated that "the Coulombi Egg concept was "fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc". So as it stands, you are making a false claim.

Like I said, very impressive that your design was "approved". And it's a bummer that the US completely trumped the IMO which has lead to no builder wanting to take a very costly risk in building ship designs that could equal or even surpass double hulls. But the US had their reasons which are well documented. And not unfounded.
The IMO was never happy with its rule about double hull tankers and added a rule that other designs could be approved when fulfilling strict requirements. The kingdom of Sweden proposed the Coulombi Egg oil tanker design on my behalf and it was September 1997 unanimously approved to provide equivalent or better protection against oil spills than double hull.
See 3.28 of https://heiwaco.tripod.com/MEPC40report.pdf .
You cannot do better than that.

8
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

Your Coulombi Egg tanker design, though impressive, wasn’t approved by the IMO as a "much better” or superior design to a double hull design. It was approved simply as an “acceptable alternative” and only in “principle”:

IMO MEPC OKs Coulombi Egg tanker design
Author: Neil Sinclair
1997/10/06


LONDON (CNI)—The Coulombi Egg tanker design, an alternative to the double hull, has been approved in principle by the International Maritime Organization's marine environment protection committee (MEPC), it was confirmed Monday.

The Coulombi Egg design is based on a series of centre and wing tanks, divided by horizontal bulkheads. Upper wing tanks form ballast tanks which act as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should lower tanks be fractured.

Although the MEPC has ruled that the Coulombi Egg is an acceptable alternative to the double hull design, its view is not shared by the US. It has said ships built to the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in US ports.


https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/1997/10/06/40203/imo-mepc-oks-coulombi-egg-tanker-design/
Thanks for your info. I was there at the IMO/London 1997, when the Coulombi Egg concept was fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc, and we celebrated until next day when USCG informed the IMO that furture Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports for ever. Life is full of surprises. What a fantastic and fast US decision.

9
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

10
The day after the United Nations' International Maritime Organization, the IMO, including USA, approved my design as better, safer and more economic than double hull (the US OPA tanker standard), September 1997, US Coast Guard informed that such tankers were illegal in USA and could not enter US ports.
Too bad that you never made a large scale proof of concept demonstrator that might have changed the USCG's mind.
You forget that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker concept was unanimously  APPROVED 1997 by United Nations' International Maritime Organization as a better alternative to US OPA 90 double hull after many years of discussion with USCG attending. After being APPROVED USCG informed that such tankers could not visit US ports, etc. The matter was discussed at the US Congress, etc. I know why. Simple corruption as usual.  Anyway, this thread has >1 million views so far, so I am pleased with the attention.

11
So I designed and patented the Coulombi Egg tanker to make some money out of the incident.
How much money did you wind up making from your design?
The day after the United Nations' International Maritime Organization, the IMO, including USA, approved my design as better, safer and more economic than double hull (the US OPA tanker standard), September 1997, US Coast Guard informed that such tankers were illegal in USA and could not enter US ports. Anyone trying to enter into USA on a Coulombi Egg tanker would be arrested, etc. as a serious threat to the US and world marine environmental protection. I was put on an CIA/FBI/USCG black list as an environmental terrorist and it seems I am still on it, in spite of the >1 million viewers of this thread.
 

12
What have I missed ?
Just Heiwa getting lonely and bumping his thread for attention again.
??? Me lonely with ~1 000 000 viewers of a link about my Challenge. I started my Challenge but not the link. And the Ch ker tanallenge is still on. And there is no winner.
Not unique viewers and most come here to laugh at you. Yes, it is VERY obvious that you are lonely and just searching for attention.
?? You sound like a cheap paid troll. 1989 US flag tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilt oil at Alaska and I was asked to assist the IMO to avoid further accidents like that. I worked for one of the biggest ship owners in the world.  So I designed and patented the Coulombi Egg tanker to make some money out of the incident. I became famous and won a prize about it. You sound like being a nobody.
Who are you?
I am at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm

13
What have I missed ?
Just Heiwa getting lonely and bumping his thread for attention again.
??? Me lonely with ~1 000 000 viewers of a link about my Challenge. I started my Challenge but not the link. And the Challenge is still on. And there is no winner.

14
Topic is about the cool Earth's crust and I point out that on Iceland the crust is not cool but >1000°C destroying my friend's garden, so he has a problem. And the suggestion of a flat Earth expert is to call a geophysicist. What on earth shall this 'expert' do?

15
It seems this topic of my Challenge has had >13 000 comments and almost 1 000 000 views since the beginning but nobody has managed to collect the prize €1M. I wonder why. Is the prize too small? Shall I increase it to €2M?

Can't collect when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence brought forth.
Can't collect a prize when you don't have the money to pay such prize.

Conspiritards like yourself are only good for others to point at and then throw their heads back and laugh.

Just bring forward your info to win my Challenge and I will be happy. So I can have a good laugh. Actually watching various US Presidents reading their messages on TV since  2000 often does the same thing. The US VICTORY 2021 against its war of TERRORISM at Afghanistan since 2001 is so funny. Where is the PARADE? With Potus Biden on a white horse. Etc.

16
It seems this topic of my Challenge has had >13 000 comments and almost 1 000 000 views since the beginning but nobody has managed to collect the prize €1M. I wonder why. Is the prize too small? Shall I increase it to €2M?

17
Is it the Devil at work?
By golly, you've cracked it.  Hell is at the center of the earth and the heat from the furnaces keeps the magma hot. ::)
No, the hot magma just flows out of a little, not very deep crack in the cool crust at Iceland. So why is the magma liquid and hot and the crust cool? Nobody seems to know!
Seriously, why do you keep asking question when you never accept any of the answers?  If you want to know why the crust is cooler than the magma below, then ask a geophysicist.
justinking asked the question, and an Icelandic friend of mine told me about the crack in the crust outside his home, where molten magma is pouring out today. My friend was in the fishing biz and built fishing boats in Japan ~50 years ago, so we got to know each other then. Icelanders are the biggest fish eaters in the world, as there is little else to live on there. Iceland is just ash. No forests. Just ash. And fishing in the Atlantic. And now a crack in it is pouring more ash on the old ash. Question is why and how the magma becomes hot.

18
Is it the Devil at work?
By golly, you've cracked it.  Hell is at the center of the earth and the heat from the furnaces keeps the magma hot. ::)
No, the hot magma just flows out of a little, not very deep crack in the cool crust at Iceland. So why is the magma liquid and hot and the crust cool? Nobody seems to know! Not even the Americans having invented nuclear bombs 1945, put people on the Moon 1969, managed to destroy three WTC skyscrapers at NY using two air planes 2001, etc, i.e. usual controlled hallucinations - http://heiwaco.com/ch.htm

19
But what is the rest of Earth's core? Hot liquid lava to the center? And all that held in place by a little crust on top?
https://slcc.pressbooks.pub/physicalgeography/chapter/3-3/
Thanks. ROTFL! Any evidence for a rigid mantle or lithosphere, an asthenosphere, a mesosphere, a stiffer mantle, an outer liquid core and and inner solid core? On Iceland there is just a deep crack in the crust with liquid lava or magma flowing out which soon becomes solid. Nobody  knows why the lava is hot. Is it the Devil at work?

20
OK! Below the crust is hot liquid lava and magma, that now and then leaks out through a crack in the crust like on Iceland spoiling my friend's potatos. But what is the rest of Earth's core? Hot liquid lava to the center? And all that held in place by a little crust on top?

21
If you can pour freezing liquid nitrogen or boiling hot water into a foam cup and hold it no problem, I see no reason why several dozen kilometres of the Earths crust wont make a good insulator
Question remains why the Earth below the crust on top is so hot and full of liquid lava and magma.

22
Why is it cool when the rest of the Earth appears to be very hot?

Where else can the heat go except to the surface?

If the magma layer begins at 32km down, why hasn't the heat conducted through to start boiling the oceans in the deepest trenches?

Shouldn't the heat travel to the cooler bits as in Newton's law of cooling?

If I heated a cannon ball until it was red hot all the way through and told you to pick it up when the crust had cooled, what would you say to me?
The Earth's crust is >70% cooled by plenty sea water on top of it since millions of years. In other, dryer areas the crust is cooled by air. I live on top of the dry, air cooled crust with a view of the sea. Now and then I walk down for a swim.

23
It is suggested that they + magnetism heat the core of the Earth producing volcanic activities. I think it is a fascinating idea.
Then perhaps you should discuss it with the person who suggested the idea.

Others believe it is radioactive decay in the core of the Earth, and if not, it is the Moon gravity that apply friction between the Earth crust and core producing heat, etc. I think both those ideas are wrong.
Then perhaps you should address your concerns to a volcanologist.
Actually I happen to have a friend on Iceland where there is a new volcanic eruption just outside his house, i.e. hot lava and magma flow out of a crack in the ground destroying his lawn. Who to blame? The Moon causing friction crust/core or radioactive decay at the core of the Earth? Or photons being accelerated by magnetic fields between the Sun and the Earth rotating in the Universe? I thought you Markjo were an expert of everything and could sort out the problem!

24

Yes, radioactive elements are found in lava/magma, although not usually in dangerous levels. 
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1147733/Yellowstone-volcano-magma-chamber-radioactive-lava-USGS-Yellowstone-news

It's also believed that tidal forces from the moon are strong enough to "knead" the earth's crust causing heat from friction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating
So no radioactive decay at Yellowstone. Just a few miles down at Yellowstone it is very hot, but nobody really knows why ... except it is maybe due to Moon gravity force. Do you really believe that?
Normally I would report the post directly above this one as spam (assuming a mod hasn't gotten rid of it yet), but in your case I think it might be sound advice.
Don't worry about spam. Question is about photon particles and what they do. It is suggested that they + magnetism heat the core of the Earth producing volcanic activities. I think it is a fascinating idea.
Others believe it is radioactive decay in the core of the Earth, and if not, it is the Moon gravity that apply friction between the Earth crust and core producing heat, etc. I think both those ideas are wrong. 

25

Yes, radioactive elements are found in lava/magma, although not usually in dangerous levels. 
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1147733/Yellowstone-volcano-magma-chamber-radioactive-lava-USGS-Yellowstone-news

It's also believed that tidal forces from the moon are strong enough to "knead" the earth's crust causing heat from friction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating
So no radioactive decay at Yellowstone. Just a few miles down at Yellowstone it is very hot, but nobody really knows why ... except it is maybe due to Moon gravity force. Do you really believe that?

26
No, I am not stupid.
If you trust Miles Mathis, then I have to wonder.

I just ask questions...
Why do you ask questions when you no intention of ever believing the answers?
Well, topic is photons and Miles Mathis has an idea that photons may heat up the core of the Earth and cause volcanic eruptions on Earth (assisted by magnetic fields and forces in the Universe). What do you think? Excuse asking! Is the heat radioactive decay? Any evidence of radioactive decay in the lava/magma of any volcano?

27
Actually, the photons coming from the Sun have different colors if you believe NASA, which I do not.
Again, are you really that stupid?  The sun produces a photons with a very wide variety of wavelengths, of which only a very few are visible to the naked eye.
No, I am not stupid. I just ask questionsn e.g how is the heat of the Earth produced and what is a photon?  According
http://milesmathis.com/aurora2.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf
Earth's heat isn't produced by a spinning iron core or any of that nuclear fission nonsense, it is created by recycling charge of photons coming in from the Sun and planets and galactic core.

28
How is the heat of the Earth produced? 
http://milesmathis.com/aurora2.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf
It isn't produced by a spinning iron core or any of that nonsense, it is created by recycling charge coming in from the Sun and planets and galactic core.

29
Actually, the photons coming from the Sun have different colors if you believe NASA, which I do not. NASA with their humans on the Moon and vehicles on planet Mars is a joke.
https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/


30
I m told that spectroscopy is a key tool in developing scientific understanding of the electromagnetic force and also of the strong and weak nuclear forces but not gravity force. But Sun light? Is it a force?
What is the force carrier of the electromagnetic force?
Photons, of course. But only day time, when it doesn't rain.
What are you trying to say?  Is the sun the only source of photons? Does it rain at night on the sun?
At night all photons from the Sun bypass me on Earth and flies away into the Universe. Question remains how does the Sun create photons!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305