I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

  • 13702 Replies
  • 1084335 Views
*

Shifter

  • 20004
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13530 on: July 22, 2021, 07:59:03 PM »
Anyway, this thread has >1 million views so far, so I am pleased with the attention.

All negative attention to you lol

1 million views = 1 million laughs at your expense

Thanks for the laughs anyway man. Maybe you're not as useless as you appear afterall

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41870
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13531 on: July 22, 2021, 08:03:21 PM »
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13532 on: July 22, 2021, 10:07:26 PM »
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.

*

Stash

  • 7842
  • I am car!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13533 on: July 22, 2021, 11:05:24 PM »
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/
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13534 on: July 23, 2021, 01:28:43 AM »
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.

?

frenat

  • 3665
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13535 on: July 23, 2021, 03:44:51 AM »
Anyway, this thread has >1 million views so far, so I am pleased with the attention.

All negative attention to you lol

1 million views = 1 million laughs at your expense

Thanks for the laughs anyway man. Maybe you're not as useless as you appear afterall
I bet he thinks it is 1 million different people. he can't understand that many of those "views" are bots and every visit because you got an email that the thread was updated by the attention seeker is another visit.   Oh but he's not seeking attention, Oh look 1 MIILLION views!

*

Stash

  • 7842
  • I am car!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13536 on: July 23, 2021, 05:19:49 AM »
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.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13537 on: July 23, 2021, 06:21:44 AM »
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.

*

Stash

  • 7842
  • I am car!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13538 on: July 23, 2021, 07:40:31 AM »
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.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13539 on: July 23, 2021, 08:45:42 AM »
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.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 7050
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13540 on: July 23, 2021, 08:57:40 AM »
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.

Not it doesn't.

https://puc.overheid.nl/nsi/doc/PUC_1725_14/1/

Quote from: MARPOL I/13F
The design concept of the "COULOMBI EGG" tanker

(Link: MARPOL I/13F)
The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its fortieth session (18 to 23 and 25 September 1997), approved in principle the design concept of the "Coulombi Egg" tanker in accordance with MARPOL 73/78 regulation I/13F(5) as an equivalent to the basic double hull requirement (MEPC 40/21, paragraph 3.28).

The description of the "Coulombi Egg" tanker design concept is set out at annex to this circular.

Quote from: MARPOL I/13F ANNEX
A "Coulombi Egg" tanker is similar to a MARPOL regulation I/13F(4) tanker except for the arrangement in cargo side tanks (see midship section shown in the figure below). The fore peak, pump-room, engine-room, aft peak and accommodation should be of regulatory type and the centre cargo tank inside the longitudinal bulkhead located not less than B/5 from the side should be arranged with a MARPOL regulation I/13F(4) horizontal partition located not more than 0.55 D above baseline. The length of each centre tank should not exceed 0.2 L. The upper deck inside the longitudinal bulkhead may be raised to form a trunk. Cargo should only be carried in the lower cargo tanks, when the operating draught exceeds the minimum draught required by MARPOL regulation I/13F(4). The slop tanks should be located inside an upper centre tank. 80% of the total cargo capacity should be located inboard of the longitudinal bulkhead B/5 from the side.

The entire cargo block should be arranged as follows:
the side tank should be not less than B/5 wide (B = ship's beam);
a horizontal partition (mid-deck) should be fitted not more than 0.45 D above baseline in the side tanks (D = ship's depth). The partition should be sloping 45¿ at the side and should be connected to a horizontal side cofferdam located between 0.25 D and 0.35 D above baseline. The minimum width of the side cofferdam should be 0.03B;

above the mid-deck and the cofferdam in the side tank should be segregated ballast tanks, the capacity of which, together with the fore and aft peaks, should meet all relevant MARPOL regulations;

below the mid-deck should be side cargo tanks. Each lower side cargo tank should forward and aft have an access trunk from the main deck. Cargo tank access trunks should be treated as part of the cargo tank when assessing oil outflow;

a partial oiltight transverse bulkhead should be fitted at half length of each lower side tank from the mid-deck to the lower edge of the side cofferdam. The purpose of the bulkhead should be to reduce outflow when side damage occurs which breaches the tank but does not extend beyond the partial bulkhead;

a tanker using above side tank concept should have cargo tanks generally subdivided as follows: length of tank body 0.78-0.8L between a 0.05L fore peak and a 0.15-0.17L aft end section with four or five lower centre cargo tanks, four of five upper centre tanks with slop tanks incorporated in the aftermost tank and four or five pairs of lower side tanks with a partial division as per .5 above at mid-length. For concept approval it was shown that the 5,000 tdw and 150,000 tdw tanker needed four groups of cargo tanks maximum 0.2L long and 60,000 tdw and 283,000 tdw tanker needed five groups of cargo tanks maximum 0.16L long ; and

the lower cargo centre tanks should be arranged as per MARPOL regulation I/13F(4)
Rabinoz RIP

*

Stash

  • 7842
  • I am car!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13541 on: July 23, 2021, 09:23:07 AM »
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.

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.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13542 on: July 23, 2021, 10:02:50 AM »


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?

*

Shifter

  • 20004
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13543 on: July 23, 2021, 04:27:10 PM »
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


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13544 on: July 23, 2021, 09:56:58 PM »
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.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 7050
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13545 on: July 24, 2021, 06:26:57 AM »
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.
Rabinoz RIP

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13546 on: July 24, 2021, 07:24:12 AM »
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.

*

JJA

  • 5120
  • Math is math!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13547 on: July 31, 2021, 05:08:25 AM »
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? ???

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13548 on: July 31, 2021, 05:36:48 AM »
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
« Last Edit: July 31, 2021, 12:26:02 PM by Heiwa »

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19903
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13549 on: August 01, 2021, 08:22:24 PM »


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

fuckin' rethart

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13550 on: August 01, 2021, 08:41:33 PM »


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

fuckin' rethart
Agree! Strange story. Can only happen in USA.

*

Shifter

  • 20004
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13551 on: August 01, 2021, 09:33:46 PM »
Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax. It is not possible for a human to leave planet Earth. Basic. Anyone believing you can fly to the Moon or Mars is an idiot! It is not their fault - media/schools say you can fly to the Moon but ... April fool!

Perhaps you are on to something. Even the world's richest men could not do anything more than a few seconds at distances more than 4x lower then the alleged space station. What goes up, must come down. These men came down pretty quick after soaring to heights that well, really aren't that high in the scheme of things

If they wanted to impress me, well I was not impressed.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19903
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13552 on: August 01, 2021, 11:07:21 PM »


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

fuckin' rethart
Agree! Strange story. Can only happen in USA.

Other countries could buy your shit.

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13553 on: August 02, 2021, 02:07:03 AM »


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

fuckin' rethart
Agree! Strange story. Can only happen in USA.

Other countries could buy your shit.
I am planning a trip through our Milky Way space to planet Venus instead! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#V  It takes only 117 days according 'experts' but question is how much fuel I need?  After having left Earth and escaped its gravity, wouldn't the Sun gravity pull me towards Venus at increased speed? It seems my speed will increase, so how to slow down upon arrival Venus? What force to apply and how much fuel is needed to create that force?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2021, 03:13:23 AM by Heiwa »

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13554 on: August 04, 2021, 11:07:11 AM »
I like this six years + thread about my Challenge for obvious reasons. The Challenge is simple - just calculate the fuel required to go to the Moon, Mars or an assteroid and explain how you use it and I pay you €1M. So far nobody has managed to do the calculations. 
So how can you go to the Moon, if you don't know how much fuel you need? Do you trust some shore staff to fill you up?
But why send an asstronut to the Moon at all? There is nothing there that cannot be be checked by some Japanese robots or similar. Why send a human being/idiot into space that can be done by a simple, cheap robot?
And going to Mars??? Just a cold rotten, barren planet  without any air or water. And a 200+ days space trip for it. And Venus? Worse!!! Only 117 days in space to go there. But it is a very hot, toxic planet with nothing to cheer about. Anyway, thanks for visiting this thread.

*

Stash

  • 7842
  • I am car!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13555 on: August 04, 2021, 01:41:28 PM »
I like this six years + thread about my Challenge for obvious reasons. The Challenge is simple - just calculate the fuel required to go to the Moon, Mars or an assteroid and explain how you use it and I pay you €1M. So far nobody has managed to do the calculations. 

Plenty of people have already, you just welch on the bet. But here it is again. Let me know what you need to wire me the €1M you don't have.

To the Moon and back:

Saturn V

Phase 1

The heaviest of the stages, S-IC is only designed to travel 42 miles of the 240,000 miles needed to get to the moon. Its fuel is RP-1, a special type of kerosene used in aviation and liquid oxygen.



For 2 minutes and 39 seconds, stage S-IC accelerated the crew to a maximum of 4G and traveling 6,340 mph. With the fuel all but gone and achieving a rather remarkable 33cm per gallon, its job was done, and it was now just dead weight. It was jettisoned and fell safely back to earth and landed in the Atlantic Ocean.


Phase 2

At 3 minutes, 12 seconds after launch, S-II ignited and for over 6 minutes it carried the crew on its way into orbit.



After reaching 15,000 mph, S-11 was jettisoned back to earth and fell into the Atlantic.

Phase 3

After nearly 9 minutes of space flight S-IVB ignited and burned for 2 minutes 27 seconds until the astronauts were in an orbit 100 nautical miles above the earth.



After one and a half orbits, a second ignition of S-IVB pushed the spacecraft onto its trajectory toward the Moon. The second burn lasted 5 minutes, 48 seconds and placed Apollo 11 into a translunar orbit at an initial speed of 24,200 mph.

Service module:

Service propulsion system

used Aerozine 50 as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) as oxidizer to produce 20,500 lbf (91 kN) of thrust.

Sector 2 (70°) contained the service propulsion system (SPS) oxidizer sump tank, so called because it directly fed the engine and was kept continuously filled by a separate storage tank, until the latter was empty. The sump tank was a cylinder with hemispherical ends, 153.8 inches (3.91 m) high, 51 inches (1.3 m) in diameter, and contained 13,923 pounds (6,315 kg) of oxidizer. Its total volume was 161.48 cu ft (4.573 m3)
Sector 3 (60°) contained the SPS oxidizer storage tank, which was the same shape as the sump tank but slightly smaller at 154.47 inches (3.924 m) high and 44 inches (1.1 m) in diameter, and held 11,284 pounds (5,118 kg) of oxidizer. Its total volume was 128.52 cu ft (3.639 m3)
Sector 4 (50°) contained the electrical power system (EPS) fuel cells with their hydrogen and oxygen reactants.
Sector 5 (70°) contained the SPS fuel sump tank. This was the same size as the oxidizer sump tank and held 8,708 pounds (3,950 kg) of fuel.
Sector 6 (60°) contained the SPS fuel storage tank, also the same size as the oxidizer storage tank. It held 7,058 pounds (3,201 kg) of fuel.

Reaction control system

used monomethylhydrazine (MMH) as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) as oxidizer.

Each cluster of thrusters had its own independent primary fuel (MMH) tank containing 69.1 pounds (31.3 kg), secondary fuel tank containing 45.2 pounds (20.5 kg), primary oxidizer tank containing 137.0 pounds (62.1 kg), and secondary oxidizer tank containing 89.2 pounds (40.5 kg). The fuel and oxidizer tanks were pressurised by a single liquid helium tank containing 1.35 pounds (0.61 kg).

Lunar Lander

Ascent Stage:

Ascent Propulsion System (APS) engine and two hypergolic propellant tanks for return to lunar orbit and rendezvous with the Apollo command and service module.
It also contained a Reaction Control System (RCS) for attitude and translation control,

RCS propellant mass: 633 lb (287 kg)
RCS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / Dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) oxidizer
APS propellant mass: 5,187 lb (2,353 kg) stored in two 36-cubic-foot (1.02 m3) propellant tanks
APS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / Dinitrogen Tetroxide oxidizer
APS pressurant: two 6.4 lb (2.9 kg) helium tanks at 3,000 pounds per square inch (21 MPa)

Descent Stage:

DPS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer
DPS pressurant: one 49-pound (22 kg) supercritical helium tank at 1,555 psi (10.72 MPa)
DPS propellant mass: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) stored in four 67.3-cubic-foot (1.906 m3) propellant tanks
DPS pressurant: one 49-pound (22 kg) supercritical helium tank at 1,555 psi (10.72 MPa)
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

Shifter

  • 20004
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13556 on: August 04, 2021, 01:46:20 PM »
I like this six years + thread about my Challenge for obvious reasons. The Challenge is simple - just calculate the fuel required to go to the Moon, Mars or an assteroid and explain how you use it and I pay you €1M. So far nobody has managed to do the calculations. 
So how can you go to the Moon, if you don't know how much fuel you need? Do you trust some shore staff to fill you up?
But why send an asstronut to the Moon at all? There is nothing there that cannot be be checked by some Japanese robots or similar. Why send a human being/idiot into space that can be done by a simple, cheap robot?
And going to Mars??? Just a cold rotten, barren planet  without any air or water. And a 200+ days space trip for it. And Venus? Worse!!! Only 117 days in space to go there. But it is a very hot, toxic planet with nothing to cheer about. Anyway, thanks for visiting this thread.

Would you accept 1g of antimatter as enough fuel?

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13557 on: August 04, 2021, 06:21:34 PM »
I like this six years + thread about my Challenge for obvious reasons. The Challenge is simple - just calculate the fuel required to go to the Moon, Mars or an assteroid and explain how you use it and I pay you €1M. So far nobody has managed to do the calculations. 
So how can you go to the Moon, if you don't know how much fuel you need? Do you trust some shore staff to fill you up?
But why send an asstronut to the Moon at all? There is nothing there that cannot be be checked by some Japanese robots or similar. Why send a human being/idiot into space that can be done by a simple, cheap robot?
And going to Mars??? Just a cold rotten, barren planet  without any air or water. And a 200+ days space trip for it. And Venus? Worse!!! Only 117 days in space to go there. But it is a very hot, toxic planet with nothing to cheer about. Anyway, thanks for visiting this thread.

Would you accept 1g of antimatter as enough fuel?

Pls see reply #18 of this popular thread.

*

Shifter

  • 20004
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13558 on: August 04, 2021, 07:45:37 PM »
I like this six years + thread about my Challenge for obvious reasons. The Challenge is simple - just calculate the fuel required to go to the Moon, Mars or an assteroid and explain how you use it and I pay you €1M. So far nobody has managed to do the calculations. 
So how can you go to the Moon, if you don't know how much fuel you need? Do you trust some shore staff to fill you up?
But why send an asstronut to the Moon at all? There is nothing there that cannot be be checked by some Japanese robots or similar. Why send a human being/idiot into space that can be done by a simple, cheap robot?
And going to Mars??? Just a cold rotten, barren planet  without any air or water. And a 200+ days space trip for it. And Venus? Worse!!! Only 117 days in space to go there. But it is a very hot, toxic planet with nothing to cheer about. Anyway, thanks for visiting this thread.

Would you accept 1g of antimatter as enough fuel?

Pls see reply #18 of this popular thread.

How about answering the question. Does 1g of antimatter provide enough energy to move a vehicle to the Moon and back?


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Heiwa

  • 9239
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #13559 on: August 04, 2021, 09:55:34 PM »
I like this six years + thread about my Challenge for obvious reasons. The Challenge is simple - just calculate the fuel required to go to the Moon, Mars or an assteroid and explain how you use it and I pay you €1M. So far nobody has managed to do the calculations. 
So how can you go to the Moon, if you don't know how much fuel you need? Do you trust some shore staff to fill you up?
But why send an asstronut to the Moon at all? There is nothing there that cannot be be checked by some Japanese robots or similar. Why send a human being/idiot into space that can be done by a simple, cheap robot?
And going to Mars??? Just a cold rotten, barren planet  without any air or water. And a 200+ days space trip for it. And Venus? Worse!!! Only 117 days in space to go there. But it is a very hot, toxic planet with nothing to cheer about. Anyway, thanks for visiting this thread.

Would you accept 1g of antimatter as enough fuel?

Pls see reply #18 of this popular thread.

How about answering the question. Does 1g of antimatter provide enough energy to move a vehicle to the Moon and back?
Maybe you find the answer in reply #24 of this popular thread.