Anonymous wrote:It's so weird that anyone cares when there are people all over the world dying every day.

Yes, why care about anyone.

I did not read all 126 pages.

Do they know what day the implosion occurred? Do they think the people suffered?

So sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t stop thinking about this but what does implosion mean? I’m trying to visualize this and the pressure? What does it do to the sub and human body? Is it like a plane explosion mid air?

It is the opposite of explosion. In an explosion, an source on the inside of a structure (usually an ignition) drives everything catastrophically out. In an implosion, a pressure source on the outside of a structure (here, water pressure) drives everything catastrophically in.

The end result of both, to the human body, is pulverization.

This is why having a vessel that could withstand water pressure of this intensity was such a high priority, and why having failed to assure that was such a glaring mistake. Almost suicidally in error.

Homicidally in error.

If the CEO had lived I would definitely have expected charges in this vein, and it would not shock me if there is civil litigation against other Oceangate execs along those lines.

What jurisdiction can they be made in? any lawyers here know?

No jurisdiction

That particular area of the Atlantic belongs to no one, and because the submersible was transported via another boat and launched from that location, it doesn’t technically belong to any jurisdiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t stop thinking about this but what does implosion mean? I’m trying to visualize this and the pressure? What does it do to the sub and human body? Is it like a plane explosion mid air?

It is the opposite of explosion. In an explosion, an source on the inside of a structure (usually an ignition) drives everything catastrophically out. In an implosion, a pressure source on the outside of a structure (here, water pressure) drives everything catastrophically in.

The end result of both, to the human body, is pulverization.

This is why having a vessel that could withstand water pressure of this intensity was such a high priority, and why having failed to assure that was such a glaring mistake. Almost suicidally in error.

Homicidally in error.

If the CEO had lived I would definitely have expected charges in this vein, and it would not shock me if there is civil litigation against other Oceangate execs along those lines.

What jurisdiction can they be made in? any lawyers here know?

No jurisdiction

The failure of the submersible is one event, but various execs may have been involved in events producing civil liability that took place in other places, no?

It's so weird that anyone cares when there are people all over the world dying every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t stop thinking about this but what does implosion mean? I’m trying to visualize this and the pressure? What does it do to the sub and human body? Is it like a plane explosion mid air?

It is the opposite of explosion. In an explosion, an source on the inside of a structure (usually an ignition) drives everything catastrophically out. In an implosion, a pressure source on the outside of a structure (here, water pressure) drives everything catastrophically in.

The end result of both, to the human body, is pulverization.

This is why having a vessel that could withstand water pressure of this intensity was such a high priority, and why having failed to assure that was such a glaring mistake. Almost suicidally in error.

Homicidally in error.

If the CEO had lived I would definitely have expected charges in this vein, and it would not shock me if there is civil litigation against other Oceangate execs along those lines.

What jurisdiction can they be made in? any lawyers here know?

No jurisdiction

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a 5th grade level explanation for why their device being shaped like a cylinder is worse than a sphere?

Why spherical pressure vessels are preferable over cylindrical shapes?

Better Resistance to External Pressure: Spherical pressure vessels have better resistance to external pressure than cylindrical pressure vessels. This is because the spherical shape distributes the external pressure evenly over the entire surface of the vessel.

Does anyone have a 5th grade level explanation for why their device being shaped like a cylinder is worse than a sphere?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t stop thinking about this but what does implosion mean? I’m trying to visualize this and the pressure? What does it do to the sub and human body? Is it like a plane explosion mid air?

It is the opposite of explosion. In an explosion, an source on the inside of a structure (usually an ignition) drives everything catastrophically out. In an implosion, a pressure source on the outside of a structure (here, water pressure) drives everything catastrophically in.

The end result of both, to the human body, is pulverization.

This is why having a vessel that could withstand water pressure of this intensity was such a high priority, and why having failed to assure that was such a glaring mistake. Almost suicidally in error.

Homicidally in error.

If the CEO had lived I would definitely have expected charges in this vein, and it would not shock me if there is civil litigation against other Oceangate execs along those lines.

What jurisdiction can they be made in? any lawyers here know?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t stop thinking about this but what does implosion mean? I’m trying to visualize this and the pressure? What does it do to the sub and human body? Is it like a plane explosion mid air?

It is the opposite of explosion. In an explosion, an source on the inside of a structure (usually an ignition) drives everything catastrophically out. In an implosion, a pressure source on the outside of a structure (here, water pressure) drives everything catastrophically in.

The end result of both, to the human body, is pulverization.

This is why having a vessel that could withstand water pressure of this intensity was such a high priority, and why having failed to assure that was such a glaring mistake. Almost suicidally in error.

Does that mean the body of the submersible could still be intact, albeit crumpled together? I’m imaging the Capri Sub example from earlier. Or even if the body imploded, it still shattered into millions of pieces?

At that depth, given the water pressure and the fact that different parts of any structure failed at ever so slightly different times, no it could not be intact and crumpled (such that you could pump it up again from within like a Capri Sun pouch). One part failing slightly before the other will also produce shear forces that tear the external structure.

The Capri Sun pouch, to continue that example, doesn’t fail at all—you could keep re-inflating and deflating it almost indefinitely. That is not because it’s indestructible but because the relative forces at work—strength of the pouch as a unitary whole, your ability to produce suction, and air pressure from the outside—just aren’t mismatched enough.

That deep in the ocean, the default is that forces are mismatched. The water pressure is just too formidable to be brushed off the way this guy decided to brush it off. It’s inexplicably stupid.

Fools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:James Cameron was just on CNN - probably the most interesting person anyone has talked to the last four days. Had great insight.

So what did he say?

Anderson Cooper interviewed him for a good 15/20min. He said a lot of things but I didn’t run a transcript lol. I thought he had great insight to safety, how this submersible was made, his previous dives & design/production of his subs, his thoughts on the lack of safety and certification of this sub, and his thoughts on carbon fiber vs other materials, and a whole lot more. I thought it was interesting and didn’t seem like opinion but fact from someone who’s actually doing this.

He is another example of an overinflated ego.

Watch the interview and then tell me who you’d rather get in a submersible with.

+1. I don’t particularly care for James Cameron, but his interviews have been very helpful in explaining all of this to those of us who aren’t familiar with the sub world. He knows his stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t stop thinking about this but what does implosion mean? I’m trying to visualize this and the pressure? What does it do to the sub and human body? Is it like a plane explosion mid air?

It is the opposite of explosion. In an explosion, an source on the inside of a structure (usually an ignition) drives everything catastrophically out. In an implosion, a pressure source on the outside of a structure (here, water pressure) drives everything catastrophically in.

The end result of both, to the human body, is pulverization.

This is why having a vessel that could withstand water pressure of this intensity was such a high priority, and why having failed to assure that was such a glaring mistake. Almost suicidally in error.

Homicidally in error.

Lesson to all of us about hubris.

Same with the titanic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t stop thinking about this but what does implosion mean? I’m trying to visualize this and the pressure? What does it do to the sub and human body? Is it like a plane explosion mid air?

It is the opposite of explosion. In an explosion, an source on the inside of a structure (usually an ignition) drives everything catastrophically out. In an implosion, a pressure source on the outside of a structure (here, water pressure) drives everything catastrophically in.

The end result of both, to the human body, is pulverization.

This is why having a vessel that could withstand water pressure of this intensity was such a high priority, and why having failed to assure that was such a glaring mistake. Almost suicidally in error.

Does that mean the body of the submersible could still be intact, albeit crumpled together? I’m imaging the Capri Sub example from earlier. Or even if the body imploded, it still shattered into millions of pieces?