Propulsion Damage on the Anthem !!

[Cuizer2]

The original doesn't have to be email to you if a shot is linked to in a post here.

You simply right click on it and select Save Picture As to download it to your device. Then one can crop, zoom in or modify that picture using Paint or other picture software.

Here's your shot that I have modified, added arrow and uploaded to CC for a thumbnail display.

 

 

 

The difference is, the original photo is 24 megapixels which allows me to zoom into a small area and still have a full sized photo.

 

The original photo as posted is 1024 x 683 (699,392 pixels). The 2nd of the zoomed photos as posted is 800 x 1000 (800,000 pixels). In short, the zoomed in photo is actually larger than the original photo as posted.

 

If you try to zoom in on the posted photo to the same area of the second zoomed photo the resulting photo would only be 120 x 150 (18,000 pixels - 2.25% the size of the picture I was able to post because I have access to the original photo).

 

Size if photo if one tries to zoom in on the photo as posted -

 

So, your method works in theory, but as a practical matter it fails miserably.

[Susie51]

 

 

thanks for photos

 

thanks for photos

[cpufrost]

If a ship still had its bow thrusters, Anthem has four of these each producing 4,694 horsepower, these could be used to at least keep the bow into the wind and waves. ;)

 

That is short lived. They have a short duty cycle compared to main propulsion.

[chengkp75]

Without propulsion, Anthem would just float around like a cork. That would mean sooner or later she would have been hit broadsides by a 30 ft wave, and that would not have been good.

 

Propulsion allows the skipper to keep a ship headed into the wind/waves.

 

If I remember correctly, the captain radioed he had lost propulsion, and the ill fated Faro only had one screw, so had zero redundancy.

 

Keeping the ship headed into the seas is for the benefit of the humans encased in the ship, not necessarily for the ship itself. Unless the ship started taking in water, faster than the pumps could remove it, even broadside, without any power at all, let alone propulsion, the ship will stay afloat. Many ships have done it, even abandoned ones.

 

The El Faro is like comparing apples to zebras in this case. The El Faro was a RO/RO carrier, meaning it had vehicular cargo. This cargo is lashed down to the various decks. During the storm, the cargo broke loose, sliding into one another, breaking more loose, until the ship had developed a significant list. This is what happens to a ship that has a change in center of gravity, not the case with Anthem. Now, the El Faro was a steam ship, and boilers are not capable of operating at significant lists, which is why they lost propulsion. The engines on the Anthem are mandated to operate at a minimum of a 22.5* list, and many will do better because of dry sump lubrication systems.

 

And a ship at sea is not stationary, so it doesn't get "hit" with a wave. As the wave approaches, the ship rides up the face, which is at some angle to the horizontal, which causes the ship to roll away from the wave. Once the ship reaches the crest of the wave, it is back upright, and then rolls the other way as it slides down the back of the other wave. Only a "breaking wave", which is extremely uncommon in deep water would actually "hit" the ship.

[chengkp75]

If a ship still had its bow thrusters, Anthem has four of these each producing 4,694 horsepower, these could be used to at least keep the bow into the wind and waves. ;)

 

That is short lived. They have a short duty cycle compared to main propulsion.

 

Not sure where you're getting this about the "duty cycle" on thrusters. Dynamically positioned oil rigs use thrusters to keep station (they're not anchored to the bottom) 24/7 for years at a time.

 

But to rob. While you are correct that there is a lot of horsepower there, at sea it is almost useless. Because they are in tunnels through the hull, any significant water flow past the ends of the tunnel (water flow caused by the ship moving ahead or astern), creates a low pressure in the tunnels, and the thrusters will cavitate and lose effectiveness. Generally, thrusters are not effective above 5 knots. Now, you say Anthem was virtually stopped in the storm. Yes, her "speed over ground" was nil, but her "speed through the water" was probably 5 knots or better, as the wind pushed the waves past a stationary object. And the water flow past the thrusters doesn't care if the water is stationary and the ship is moving, or if the ship is stationary and the water is moving, it is the relative velocity between ship and water (speed through the water) that is important.

[cpufrost]

Not sure where you're getting this about the "duty cycle" on thrusters. Dynamically positioned oil rigs use thrusters to keep station (they're not anchored to the bottom) 24/7 for years at a time.

 

 

I was told that Brunvoll tunnel thrusters used on Norwegian Jewel have a duty cycle, i.e. cannot run at full power continuously(3.3MW IIRC) but this is never a problem in normal use, i.e. docking. I know these ships have the capability to maintain stationary position indefinitely but aren't called to run at full power.

 

 

Now if there's anyone on this board that knows this isn't the case, it would be you! ;)

[chengkp75]

I was told that Brunvoll tunnel thrusters used on Norwegian Jewel have a duty cycle, i.e. cannot run at full power continuously(3.3MW IIRC) but this is never a problem in normal use, i.e. docking. I know these ships have the capability to maintain stationary position indefinitely but aren't called to run at full power.

 

 

Now if there's anyone on this board that knows this isn't the case, it would be you! ;)

 

Never heard of this, but could be true. "Full power" may be a limiting factor, but even so, 3 or 4 at 75% power is a bunch. It's not something you experience normally, and like I say, even in that storm, they wouldn't be putting out much thrust, just wasting a lot of electricity. More familiar with Rolls Royce and ABB thrusters.

[robtulipe]

The difference is, the original photo is 24 megapixels which allows me to zoom into a small area and still have a full sized photo.

 

The original photo as posted is 1024 x 683 (699,392 pixels). The 2nd of the zoomed photos as posted is 800 x 1000 (800,000 pixels). In short, the zoomed in photo is actually larger than the original photo as posted.

 

If you try to zoom in on the posted photo to the same area of the second zoomed photo the resulting photo would only be 120 x 150 (18,000 pixels - 2.25% the size of the picture I was able to post because I have access to the original photo).

 

Size if photo if one tries to zoom in on the photo as posted -

 

So, your method works in theory, but as a practical matter it fails miserably.

 

So have much resolution do you need to post pictures on a forum like Cruise Critic?

Most times I set my camera to VGA for shots to be posted here and I certainly don't take my casual shots at 24 MP. I didn't do anything other than resize the shot below a little larger and it is quite readable for posting here.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by robtulipe

[TravelerThom]

SORRY, the post immediately below is NOT "quite readable" in my book. I read this as PAX: 4035.

Your other post (second below) I read as PAX: 4095

...I didn't do anything other than resize the shot below a little larger and it is quite readable for posting here.

 

 

I'm not sure why you are having trouble zooming in ...

 

 

 

Perhaps you should get a Mazda ... :)

 

[The_Big_M]

Looking at the gigantic costs involved they couldn't see themselves making it profitable, so they didn't take up the task. Airbus did.

 

Make no mistake, the A380 is a technological marvel and the best plane ever built.

 

2016 has kicked-off to a great start for Airbus with 15 new A380s placed on order in January alone...

 

Agreed, the A380 is easily my plane of choice as a passenger. The only contender may be the 787 which I haven't tried yet, but it's superior to any of the other options.

 

Glad to hear some more will be flying in future.

[eddeb]

I posted events at sea which has apparently been hijacked...

 

If you would like to see all the ships that had engine failures, etc, over the last few years,

 

Please visit this site. http://www.Cruisejunkie.com

 

Click on disabled ships to see that what I am telling you is not fiction. It happens all the time, they just do not tell you about it.

 

There is no redundancy in the azipods, and the ship was going 1 to four knots in 100mph winds for 3 to four hours, according to a video we saw from passengers on the vessel.

 

So please check out this site (not mine) and then tell me I'm in a band.... lol :)

 

Take care,

 

Safe Journeys.

 

We are the Moore's

Tampa Bay

[Cuizer2]

So have much resolution do you need to post pictures on a forum like Cruise Critic?

Most times I set my camera to VGA for shots to be posted here and I certainly don't take my casual shots at 24 MP. I didn't do anything other than resize the shot below a little larger and it is quite readable for posting here.

 

 

There is no size requirement that I know of for posting. By personal choice I like to be between 800x600 to 1024x768 when I post. Also, again personal choice, I don't like blurry or grainy photos.

 

I take all my photos at at the highest resolution. Otherwise why bother upgrading? My DSLR is 24 megapixels and I have several large SD cards of 16 and 32 GB. I typically shoot 800 to 1200 photos a week on a cruise. Each photo is about 10 megabytes. So each card can hold 1,500 or 3,000 photographs each.

 

If you are happy with the way your photo looks that is fine. I'm a little more picky about mine.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Cuizer2

[Cuizer2]

SORRY, the post immediately below is NOT "quite readable" in my book. I read this as PAX: 4035.

Your other post (second below) I read as PAX: 4095

 

The top photo and the bottom two photos were posted by different people.

[TravelerThom]

The top photo and the bottom two photos were posted by different people.

My mistake, but am I correct that they start from the same photo and robtulipe has resized (reformatted?) Crizer2's original post photo? I can read the Crizer2 "zoomed" photos, robtulipe's "quite readable" photo not so much. Am I missing something here? (In case you haven't figured out, I am not an expert digital photographer, but am trying to understand what can and can't be done.)

 

thanks

Thom

[bobmacliberty]

Really wish you guys hadn't told me about those airplane forums. Even though I'm not a plane fanatic, I can easily see losing several more hours of my life scanning through those sites.

[robtulipe]

My mistake, but am I correct that they start from the same photo and robtulipe has resized (reformatted?) Crizer2's original post photo? I can read the Crizer2 "zoomed" photos, robtulipe's "quite readable" photo not so much. Am I missing something here? (In case you haven't figured out, I am not an expert digital photographer, but am trying to understand what can and can't be done.)

 

thanks

Thom

 

Yes you are correct.

I downloaded Cruizer2 169 kb shot, which was from thus linked to his Photobucket account, cropped it so it became 35kb, resized it to 97kb and posted it back here in this thread but I didn't enhance it other than the resize. Cruzer2 shot was on the low side resolution wise as my linked to Photobucket pictures are typically in the 200 to 300kb range.

You are correct it is not as readable as Cruizer2 cropped 203kb board shot from his original very high resolution picture as that cropped shot had about 6 times more resolution than the 35kb I had originally in my cropped picture of the persons onboard board. This is an extreme example of downloading, cropping and reposting due to the fact it had hand written numbers.

All I wanted to point out is that with scene shots to be posted to be viewed on device screen, high resolution is not typically needed. Most times I don't even link to shots in my Photobucket accounts as I did with the Anthem bridge shots in my post above. I simply download them to CC so they are thumbnail shots and link to the larger shot which appears when one clinks on the thumbnail.

This is what I have done with the shots I've post on the Anthem balcony cabins deck 6 question thread I've linked to below.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2217996

 

Here are a couple of these balcony shots. The resolution of the first is 16kb and second 11kb.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by robtulipe

[Cuizer2]

My mistake, but am I correct that they start from the same photo and robtulipe has resized (reformatted?) Crizer2's original post photo? I can read the Crizer2 "zoomed" photos, robtulipe's "quite readable" photo not so much. Am I missing something here? (In case you haven't figured out, I am not an expert digital photographer, but am trying to understand what can and can't be done.)

 

thanks

Thom

 

You are correct, but let me give you the entire sequence. The photos were taken with a 24 megapixel (6000x4000) DSLR camera. The lens is a $500 lens. Thus the lens cost more than a P&S camera. So I am starting with a good quality photo.

 

I have photo editing software. I will reduce the full sized photo to 1024x768 for posting. Since the 35mm format of the DSLR is 3x2 (not 4x3) the 1024x768 format becomes 1024x683 or 699,392 pixels.

 

I was then asked to zoom in on a smaller part of the picture. Okay, I wasn't asked, I volunteered. The area of the photo that I zoomed in on was 800x1000 (0.8 megapixels). So the zoomed in photo, as posted, was actually larger than the original photo, as posted. This is only possible because I had access to the original photo at its original size.

 

The other poster zoomed in on the same portion of the original photo, as posted. This photo has only 699,392 pixels (not the 24 million pixels I was working with). Thus, by zooming in on the same portion of the photo that I zoomed in on, there are only 23,313 pixels.

 

The more one zooms in, the bigger each pixel looks when posted - if both pictures are the same size when posted. In other words, a 800x1000 pixel photo on an 8x10 photo paper will have 100 pixels per inch. Thus each pixel is 0.01 inch in size. A 23,313 pixel photo blown up to 8x10 will have about 17 pixels per inch. Each pixel will be 0.06 inch in size (each pixel will be six times bigger in size).

 

Which photo is going to be less pixelated? This is why I went back to the original photo and this is why the zoomed photo I posted is easier to read.

[CPT Trips]

Agreed, the A380 is easily my plane of choice as a passenger. The only contender may be the 787 which I haven't tried yet, but it's superior to any of the other options.

 

Glad to hear some more will be flying in future.

 

As an economy passenger, neither the A380 nor the 787 with their 3-X-3 seating are high on my list. I much prefer the 2-X-2 of the A330.