On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:53:14 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Dunno what a capital ship is but am guessing it's big.

My bad for not defining it, but you, sir, are correct, although
in looking it up, I realized I was not correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

Per M. Stradbury:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far we

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.

Dne 22/12/2015 v 22:50 M. Stradbury napsal(a):
But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

Be aware of surface tension.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

In article , says...

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

Mike.

M. Stradbury wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far we

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:25:12 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

M. Stradbury wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far we

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.

When changing size, especially on the scale of a battleship compared
to a floating object in a bathtub, all sorts of things don't scale the
same. For example if an ant was scaled up to human size it would no
longer be able to have the same strength to weight ratio it enjoys at
its regular size. Another example that seems excessive but is true is
that to small flying things, like bees, the air seems much more
viscous than it does to us. I was reading several years ago in Science
News that the viscosity of water to a swimming human is similar to
what small flying insects experience flying in air. I wonder what the
world is like for very small life forms, like bacteria, and very large
ones like blue whales.
Eric

Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:07 MJC napsal(a):
In article , says...

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sputnik

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
"artificial satellite," extended from the name of the one launched
by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik "satellite,"
literally "traveling companion" (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi,
"traveling companion of the Earth") from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku,
from Russian so-, s- "with, together" + put' "path, way," from Old
Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- "to tread, go" (see find (v.)) +
agent suffix -nik.






--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:25 Tony Hwang napsal(a):


If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

That is not needed
but it is very difficult to maintain similarity.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

"Poutnik" wrote in message
...
Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:07 MJC napsal(a):
In article , says...

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sputnik

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
"artificial satellite," extended from the name of the one launched
by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik "satellite,"
literally "traveling companion" (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi,
"traveling companion of the Earth") from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku,
from Russian so-, s- "with, together" + put' "path, way," from Old
Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- "to tread, go" (see find (v.)) +
agent suffix -nik.

How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?

--
bg

Dne 23/12/2015 v 19:31 Robert Green napsal(a):

How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?

I do not think it has Slavic origin.
It is probably related to kaput .

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...0&search=kaput

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:31:36 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

KAPUTNIK
It was a name of a character in 1960s Mad magazine.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus