I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 12:02:32 PM

Actually safety at sea is the most difficult as it takes place in the interface between ocean water and the air of the sky above with the added risk of land close by.

Does safety at sea involve manned vehicles traveling at hypersonic velocities?

No. It involves using shitty single hull designs over the standard double hull

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 12:02:32 PM

Actually safety at sea is the most difficult as it takes place in the interface between ocean water and the air of the sky above with the added risk of land close by.

Does safety at sea involve manned vehicles traveling at hypersonic velocities?

No. It involves using shitty single hull designs over the standard double hull

I am quite proud that the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, 1997 approved my single hull tanker design, the Coulombi Egg, as better than US double hull according to the Marpol standards, with result that USA decided to ban such tankers from entry to US ports. It doesn't prevent Chinese, Iranian and Russian tanker owners to use the concept, as they do not trade with US ports.  I describe it at my website.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 12:35:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 12:02:32 PM

Actually safety at sea is the most difficult as it takes place in the interface between ocean water and the air of the sky above with the added risk of land close by.

Does safety at sea involve manned vehicles traveling at hypersonic velocities?

No. It involves using shitty single hull designs over the standard double hull

I am quite proud that the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, 1997 approved my single hull tanker design, the Coulombi Egg, as better than US double hull according to the Marpol standards, with result that USA decided to ban such tankers from entry to US ports. It doesn't prevent Chinese, Iranian and Russian tanker owners to use the concept, as they do not trade with US ports.  I describe it at my website.

Lies.  No where in their acceptance of your design did they say it was better than Double Hull tankers.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 06:15:25 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 12:35:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 12:02:32 PM

Actually safety at sea is the most difficult as it takes place in the interface between ocean water and the air of the sky above with the added risk of land close by.

Does safety at sea involve manned vehicles traveling at hypersonic velocities?

No. It involves using shitty single hull designs over the standard double hull

I am quite proud that the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, 1997 approved my single hull tanker design, the Coulombi Egg, as better than US double hull according to the Marpol standards, with result that USA decided to ban such tankers from entry to US ports. It doesn't prevent Chinese, Iranian and Russian tanker owners to use the concept, as they do not trade with US ports.  I describe it at my website.

Lies.  No where in their acceptance of your design did they say it was better than Double Hull tankers.

No, I was there at London September 1997, when the IMO (including USA) approved  my tanker design and to do so it provided better protection than double hull. It was also safer and cheaper to build and maintain. Only afterwards USCG informed that such tankers would not be allowed to enter US ports.  I describe it at my website. A US oil company had earlier tried to buy my concept but I turned down the offer. I got quite rich later due to other work concerning safety at sea.

It doesn't prevent Chinese, Iranian and Russian tanker owners to use the concept, as they do not trade with US ports.

Do any Chinese, Iranian or Russian tanker owners use the concept?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 31, 2022, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 06:15:25 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 12:35:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 12:02:32 PM

Actually safety at sea is the most difficult as it takes place in the interface between ocean water and the air of the sky above with the added risk of land close by.

Does safety at sea involve manned vehicles traveling at hypersonic velocities?

No. It involves using shitty single hull designs over the standard double hull

I am quite proud that the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, 1997 approved my single hull tanker design, the Coulombi Egg, as better than US double hull according to the Marpol standards, with result that USA decided to ban such tankers from entry to US ports. It doesn't prevent Chinese, Iranian and Russian tanker owners to use the concept, as they do not trade with US ports.  I describe it at my website.

Lies.  No where in their acceptance of your design did they say it was better than Double Hull tankers.

No, I was there at London September 1997, when the IMO (including USA) approved  my tanker design and to do so it provided better protection than double hull. It was also safer and cheaper to build and maintain. Only afterwards USCG informed that such tankers would not be allowed to enter US ports.  I describe it at my website. A US oil company had earlier tried to buy my concept but I turned down the offer. I got quite rich later due to other work concerning safety at sea.

Lies.  No where in the documented acceptance of your design did they state, that it was better than a Double Hull Tanker.   I'd wait for you to produce the exact quotes from their approval of the design that stipulates it was better, but I'm not interested in dying of old age waiting for something that won't ever happen.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 06:34:05 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 31, 2022, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 06:15:25 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 12:35:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 12:02:32 PM

Actually safety at sea is the most difficult as it takes place in the interface between ocean water and the air of the sky above with the added risk of land close by.

Does safety at sea involve manned vehicles traveling at hypersonic velocities?

No. It involves using shitty single hull designs over the standard double hull

I am quite proud that the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, 1997 approved my single hull tanker design, the Coulombi Egg, as better than US double hull according to the Marpol standards, with result that USA decided to ban such tankers from entry to US ports. It doesn't prevent Chinese, Iranian and Russian tanker owners to use the concept, as they do not trade with US ports.  I describe it at my website.

Lies.  No where in their acceptance of your design did they say it was better than Double Hull tankers.

No, I was there at London September 1997, when the IMO (including USA) approved  my tanker design and to do so it provided better protection than double hull. It was also safer and cheaper to build and maintain. Only afterwards USCG informed that such tankers would not be allowed to enter US ports.  I describe it at my website. A US oil company had earlier tried to buy my concept but I turned down the offer. I got quite rich later due to other work concerning safety at sea.

Lies.  No where in the documented acceptance of your design did they state, that it was better than a Double Hull Tanker.   I'd wait for you to produce the exact quotes from their approval of the design that stipulates it was better, but I'm not interested in dying of old age waiting for something that won't ever happen.

OK, let's say the "protection" is equivalent. But less steel, welding and paint are required and access for maintenance is simplified.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 06:15:25 PM

It doesn't prevent Chinese, Iranian and Russian tanker owners to use the concept, as they do not trade with US ports.

Do any Chinese, Iranian or Russian tanker owners use the concept?

Maybe. I have informed Turkish and Chinese shipyards that the concept approved 1997 by the IMO is today in the public domain and can be used without paying any royalty to me.

There are none...

Although the double hull requirement was adopted in 1992, following the Erika incident off the coast of France in December 1999, IMO Member States discussed proposals for accelerating the phase-out of single hull tankers. As a result, in April 2001, IMO adopted a revised phase-out schedule for single hull tankers, which entered into force on 1 September 2003 (the 2001 amendments to MARPOL). The revised requirements set out a stricter timetable for the phasing-out of single-hull tankers.

But Coulombi Egg tankers are permitted. Protection is a ballast wing tank and hydrostatic loading, etc. I describe it at my website.

But Coulombi Egg tankers are permitted.

Not anymore.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 01:39:53 AM

But Coulombi Egg tankers are permitted.

Not anymore.

Oh yes. They are allowed but cannot enter US ports.

Is there any tanker, anywhere on the world using your design?

Sureky there are some countries that don't do business with the US so don't give a shit about docking in their ports

Single hulls is mind boggingly stupid. Especially for a man who made 'safety at sea' his lifes work

Just do a triple hull design and put double hulls to shame. How do you propose that a single hull is superior? I mean, it might be better in the absence of anything going wrong (less weight / more space) but if collisions do occur, you'd want that extra protection.

The night of your conception for example..... Just think if your dad put on some protection.

Is there any tanker, anywhere on the world using your design?

Sureky there are some countries that don't do business with the US so don't give a shit about docking in their ports

Single hulls is mind boggingly stupid. Especially for a man who made 'safety at sea' his lifes work

Just do a triple hull design and put double hulls to shame. How do you propose that a single hull is superior? I mean, it might be better in the absence of anything going wrong (less weight / more space) but if collisions do occur, you'd want that extra protection.

The night of your conception for example..... Just think if your dad put on some protection.

I agree with you that both double hull and single hull are stupid compared with the Coulombi Egg tanker concept.  But USCG 1997 decided otherwise and instead of an intelligent discussion and evaluation, they simply forbid Coulombi Egg tankers entry to US ports. It has been discussed in the US Congress, where I have testified, etc. Just visit my website about it. You are OT. Here we discuss other matters.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on August 01, 2022, 05:48:39 AM

Is there any tanker, anywhere on the world using your design?

Sureky there are some countries that don't do business with the US so don't give a shit about docking in their ports

Single hulls is mind boggingly stupid. Especially for a man who made 'safety at sea' his lifes work

Just do a triple hull design and put double hulls to shame. How do you propose that a single hull is superior? I mean, it might be better in the absence of anything going wrong (less weight / more space) but if collisions do occur, you'd want that extra protection.

The night of your conception for example..... Just think if your dad put on some protection.

I agree with you that both double hull and single hull are stupid compared with the Coulombi Egg tanker concept.  But USCG 1997 decided otherwise and instead of an intelligent discussion and evaluation, they simply forbid Coulombi Egg tankers entry to US ports. It has been discussed in the US Congress, where I have testified, etc. Just visit my website about it. You are OT. Here we discuss other matters.

No where did he say such.

Your tanker design is crap, still is crap.  Single hull tankers of set design were still approved by IMO at the time but were scheduled to be phased out.  Just because it was approved, doesn't mean it's a better design than others.

What do you think about my testimony to the US Congress?

What do you think about my testimony to the US Congress?

Your testimony failed.

Right. US Congress didn't understand what I told them. Happens all the time. I feel sorry for the Americans.

Right. US Congress didn't understand what I told them. Happens all the time. I feel sorry for the Americans.

Doesn't matter whether they understood or not. The US, UN, IMO/Marpol all killed the idea. So there you have it. I'll side with the US, UN, IMO/MARPOL before I go with a lone conspiracy theorist.

Why do you get so upset about my Coulombi Egg tanker approved by IMO 1997 after many years of evaluations? It is the only alternative to double hull ever approved! And the next week after approval a corrupt USCG admiral informed the IMO that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports! And then the matter was discussed in the US Congress and the corrupt USCG admiral made a fool of himself but the decision remained in force. Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports. The concept was developed by me and the tanker industry thought it was the best concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the concept and was turned down by me. I lost some money but I got very rich later when the IMO suggested that existing ropax ferries must be improved by watertight doors in the superstructure (the Stockholm agreement!). Plenty ropax ferries became worthless over night and I bought plenty of them for less than scrap. Then IMO realized that the Stockholm agreement was nonsense, etc, etc, due to total corruption in US, UK, Germany and Scandinavia. And the ferries could still be used in the Mediterranean and around Africa and Asia. I have seen plenty corruption at IMO and its members and I always come out a winner on top. And this is the topic of this thread. Decisions based on fake news just supporting particular criminal interests.

So those that disagree with your bad concept are corrupt?

So those that disagree with your bad concept are corrupt?

Yes. But I haven't met them personally. They do it behind my back and refuse a serious discussion. Example: We discussed oil pollution at sea at the IMO 1990/7 and evidently we defined what oil pollution was and how to prevent it, e.g. hydrostatic loading. We discussed and all incl. USCG agreed the probability of different damages and associated oil spills/pollution, etc. We found and agreed, e.g. that 80% of oil pollution in tanker collisions was due to leakages in the side above waterline only, that is <20% of the side of the tanker. It was a surprise to many "experts". Before it was assumed that the complete side was ripped open, and so on. It meant that a uniform double side was inferior protection compared to top side ballast tanks, etc, etc.  Using the IMO agreed definition of protection against oil spills  it was easy to show that US OPA 90 double hull side was/is inferior to Coulombi Egg top side tanks.

Why do you get so upset about my Coulombi Egg tanker approved by IMO 1997 after many years of evaluations?

I am in no way upset. I just have no respect people who lie.

It is the only alternative to double hull ever approved!

Yet another lie: "This chapter will introduce some of the alternative design concepts to double hull,
particularly Mid-deck and Coulombi Egg designs. These two concepts are approved by
IMO, but not by the United States."

Quote from: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 12:22:43 PM

Why do you get so upset about my Coulombi Egg tanker approved by IMO 1997 after many years of evaluations?

I am in no way upset. I just have no respect people who lie.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 12:22:43 PM

It is the only alternative to double hull ever approved!

Yet another lie: "This chapter will introduce some of the alternative design concepts to double hull,
particularly Mid-deck and Coulombi Egg designs. These two concepts are approved by
IMO, but not by the United States."

The Marpol 13F rules were adopted in the 1990's about (1) double hull, (2) double side/midheight deck and (3) alternative designs. USA adopted these rules. September 1997 the Coulombi Egg tanker was unanimously approved by the IMO (incl. USA) as an alternative (13F(3)) design developed by me since 1989. But a few days later USA informed that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports.

But a few days later USA informed that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports.

Heiwa, at this point Im 99% sure the reason why they would not allow your design was because you would not shut up about your stupid website.
They where afraid you would sneak into the USA and bug literally everyone about your website at every living and breathing moment.
Maybe, we can all hope, if you stopped talking about it for more than 12 seconds, the USA would allow your Egg ships.
But for now, they are doing it in self defense.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 10:43:24 PM

But a few days later USA informed that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports.

Heiwa, at this point Im 99% sure the reason why they would not allow your design was because you would not shut up about your stupid website.
They where afraid you would sneak into the USA and bug literally everyone about your website at every living and breathing moment.
Maybe, we can all hope, if you stopped talking about it for more than 12 seconds, the USA would allow your Egg ships.
But for now, they are doing it in self defense.

No, there were other reasons. Just look at the result. Joe Biden on top!! A joke.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 10:43:24 PM

But a few days later USA informed that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports.

Heiwa, at this point Im 99% sure the reason why they would not allow your design was because you would not shut up about your stupid website.
They where afraid you would sneak into the USA and bug literally everyone about your website at every living and breathing moment.
Maybe, we can all hope, if you stopped talking about it for more than 12 seconds, the USA would allow your Egg ships.
But for now, they are doing it in self defense.

His designs were simply shit. Pure and true.

Observe for yourself the shitness

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90170.0

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on August 02, 2022, 02:58:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 10:43:24 PM

But a few days later USA informed that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports.

Heiwa, at this point Im 99% sure the reason why they would not allow your design was because you would not shut up about your stupid website.
They where afraid you would sneak into the USA and bug literally everyone about your website at every living and breathing moment.
Maybe, we can all hope, if you stopped talking about it for more than 12 seconds, the USA would allow your Egg ships.
But for now, they are doing it in self defense.

His designs were simply shit. Pure and true.

Observe for yourself the shitness

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90170.0

Thanks. The link explains why the Coulombi Egg tanker does not spill oil in collisions and groundings.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on August 02, 2022, 04:43:23 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on August 02, 2022, 02:58:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 10:43:24 PM

But a few days later USA informed that Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports.

Heiwa, at this point Im 99% sure the reason why they would not allow your design was because you would not shut up about your stupid website.
They where afraid you would sneak into the USA and bug literally everyone about your website at every living and breathing moment.
Maybe, we can all hope, if you stopped talking about it for more than 12 seconds, the USA would allow your Egg ships.
But for now, they are doing it in self defense.

His designs were simply shit. Pure and true.

Observe for yourself the shitness

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90170.0

Thanks. The link explains why the Coulombi Egg tanker does not spill oil in collisions and groundings.

It's a good thing I wasn't eating or drinking reading that. Would have choked

His designs were simply shit. Pure and true.

Observe for yourself the shitness

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90170.0

I did not really need to see the design to know it was bad. Im just using his website as a refrence for what he thinks is great to know where his standards lie.

Heiwa, serious question. Everyone consistantly hammers you here on all kinds of crap.
Do you secretly enjoy this punishment?