In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
Hey you old salty dog, give me the definition of ships and boats. I'm all ready with ya on pistols and revolvers...
Some vessels are in a gray area and could go either way, and in some cases it's a matter of semantics, such as submarines and patrol gunboats, but a generally accepted definition of a boat is a vessel which can be loaded onto another vessel.
Most seagoing blue-water vessels are ships.
So the USS Cole was a ship when floating on it's own, but a boat when it was loaded on that barge that brought it back to the States for repair work?
quote:Originally posted by aglore
So the USS Cole was a ship when floating on it's own, but a boat when it was loaded on that barge that brought it back to the States for repair work?
I thought they brought her home in a floating drydock (semi-submersible heavy transport vessel). In any event, unless they changed the definition of USS (United States Ship), she was a ship all the way home. She will be a ship until she is decommissioned or struck from the registry. Considering her history there will probably be another USS Cole after that happens.
Here's another word game you can play with. USS Cole is referred to as "she", but she is a "Man of War". Is the USS Cole male or female? No shemale jokes.
aglore, USS Tacoma (PG-92) was a Patrol Gunboat. USS = United States Ship, but she was a Patrol Gunboat, built by the Tacoma Boatbuilding Company. Was she a ship or a boat? Answer: She was a ship.
Submariners call their submarines boats because traditionally submarines were boats. Airdales call Aircraft Carriers boats because they don't know any better. Sailors call their ships ships. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
quote:Originally posted by 1fisher
I think that you have to figure in the weight of the boats due to the long, narrow shape of the canal bridge. Yes, the boat displaces the same amount of water, but that water would have to be displaced outside of the bridge for there to be no effect on it's structure.
Don McManus basically has it right - if the water level in the bridge stays constant, there is no change in weight. But - I think that the shape of the bridge will not allow that displaced water to get out the ends easily, so the water level in the bridge will actually rise as a boat passes through (increasing the weight on the structure.
How do you figure that the weight will remain the same as long as the water level does? A boat and water do not have the same density, therefore they have difference weights.
As far as the ships being insignificant, this is also not true. The boats pictured are undoubtedly 30-50 tons. That is significant.
To all those that think the boats weight dissapears; this is more a question of common sense than a question of physics. Obviously their mass and hence weight DO matter and DO figure into the equation. The weight measured under the bridge were it on a scale will increase exactly per whatever weight is added to the water. Are you saying that if the boats sunk, THEN their weight would be added because they were not floating?
Water does not have magical properties as some of you apparently think. It is not like filling a balloon with helium. Mass is mass and gravity acts upon mass.
Again, this is a question of common sense!
What you say is true especially in a confined space such as a locke. you could demonstarte this by putting a toy boat (or a golf ball) in a glass of water. the water rises measurably. if said glass of water were on a scale, it would increase by the weight of the golf ball even if it floated.
quote:Originally posted by scottm21166
What you say is true especially in a confined space such as a locke. you could demonstarte this by putting a toy boat (or a golf ball) in a glass of water. the water rises measurably. if said glass of water were on a scale, it would increase by the weight of the golf ball even if it floated.
Not if you remove the amount of water the golf ball displaces as you put the ball into the glass, which is exactly what happens when a ship travels from a loch into a canal or bridge.
Scott, you are correct that dead weight tons and displacement tons are not the same thing, but I don't think that's what the discussion was about. You are correct that if you add one dead weight ton to the bridge, it is bearing an additional dead weight ton whether it is floating or submerged. I think it would make a difference in weight distribution though.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
Hey you old salty dog, give me the definition of ships and boats. I'm all ready with ya on pistols and revolvers...
Some vessels are in a gray area and could go either way, and in some cases it's a matter of semantics, such as submarines and patrol gunboats, but a generally accepted definition of a boat is a vessel which can be loaded onto another vessel.
Most seagoing blue-water vessels are ships.
So the USS Cole was a ship when floating on it's own, but a boat when it was loaded on that barge that brought it back to the States for repair work?
So the USS Cole was a ship when floating on it's own, but a boat when it was loaded on that barge that brought it back to the States for repair work?
I thought they brought her home in a floating drydock (semi-submersible heavy transport vessel). In any event, unless they changed the definition of USS (United States Ship), she was a ship all the way home. She will be a ship until she is decommissioned or struck from the registry. Considering her history there will probably be another USS Cole after that happens.
Here's another word game you can play with. USS Cole is referred to as "she", but she is a "Man of War". Is the USS Cole male or female? No shemale jokes.
Submariners call their submarines boats because traditionally submarines were boats. Airdales call Aircraft Carriers boats because they don't know any better. Sailors call their ships ships. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by 1fisher
I think that you have to figure in the weight of the boats due to the long, narrow shape of the canal bridge. Yes, the boat displaces the same amount of water, but that water would have to be displaced outside of the bridge for there to be no effect on it's structure.
Don McManus basically has it right - if the water level in the bridge stays constant, there is no change in weight. But - I think that the shape of the bridge will not allow that displaced water to get out the ends easily, so the water level in the bridge will actually rise as a boat passes through (increasing the weight on the structure.
How do you figure that the weight will remain the same as long as the water level does? A boat and water do not have the same density, therefore they have difference weights.
As far as the ships being insignificant, this is also not true. The boats pictured are undoubtedly 30-50 tons. That is significant.
To all those that think the boats weight dissapears; this is more a question of common sense than a question of physics. Obviously their mass and hence weight DO matter and DO figure into the equation. The weight measured under the bridge were it on a scale will increase exactly per whatever weight is added to the water. Are you saying that if the boats sunk, THEN their weight would be added because they were not floating?
Water does not have magical properties as some of you apparently think. It is not like filling a balloon with helium. Mass is mass and gravity acts upon mass.
Again, this is a question of common sense!
What you say is true especially in a confined space such as a locke. you could demonstarte this by putting a toy boat (or a golf ball) in a glass of water. the water rises measurably. if said glass of water were on a scale, it would increase by the weight of the golf ball even if it floated.
What you say is true especially in a confined space such as a locke. you could demonstarte this by putting a toy boat (or a golf ball) in a glass of water. the water rises measurably. if said glass of water were on a scale, it would increase by the weight of the golf ball even if it floated.
Not if you remove the amount of water the golf ball displaces as you put the ball into the glass, which is exactly what happens when a ship travels from a loch into a canal or bridge.
Ships are boats but boats aren't neccasarily a ship.
Now that's funny right there. Wrong, but funny. [:D] [:D]
I thought you might like that.