It was just serviced within days of this incident, not sure what was supposedly done, but chances are, it's a lie anyway, just one more way to blame it on someone and hide the truth!
What about the anchor? If there was only one anchor thrown from one side of the ship, this could have exerted a drag force and caused a change in the ship’s heading.
To put it in perspective, the anchor and three shots of chain probably weight somewhere around 50 tons. The Dali itself has a displacement of 160,000 tons.
When you say the anchor would have minimal effect, do mean like a 7% or 8% change in degrees off existing course (i.e. 141 deg. to 151)?
If you add minimal effect with the anchor-lets say 4 or 5%--and a minimal effect of current--lets say .5% to 1% and a minimal effect of wind--again lets say .5% to 1%, you pretty quickly get to the 7% or 8% change (i.e. 141 deg. to 151 Deg.) in course.
Note the time line that the it didn't change course until after the anchor was dropped.
Not saying this changes John Leak's story. Though I think it should be considered.
Again, if you look at the time line, it slows from 8.7 to 7.7 in a matter of seconds the anchor is dropped. (this doesn't sound close to zero effect)
Additionally, if you look at the percentage changed in speed (~11.5%) this is pretty close to the percentage change in direction (about 7.5%) and you would expect the effect of the anchor to a larger effect on speed that direction.
I think the anchor did in fact contribute to the loss of speed. I don't think it contributed much to any change of direction. It might have helped bring the bow to port a tiny bit faster, but nothing that would make any real difference. The loss of one knot over the distance given due to the anchor sounds reasonable to me.
Reportedly it was the port anchor that was ordered to be dropped. If the port anchor were dragging, it would be exerting a steering force to port as well as a braking force. But the ship turned aggressively to starboard. Impossible that the port anchor could've done that.
The only reason I can think of that the pilot would order the port anchor dropped is if someone has taken control of the ship remotely, and the pilot is trying to fight the turn to starboard with the only tool he has.
Excellent blog on this subject, Michael Suede. What I find amazing is that they managed to clear the bridge of all vehicle traffic just moments before the ship hit it. Watching those last cars drive off, in the footage you shared, is amazing. What luck that they were able to do that, or the loss of life would have been far worse. Still, this was horrible for those men working on the bridge.
John, The only thing of which I am confident is that we will NEVER get an accurate and transparent report on this disaster. Have you read the Warren Commission report lately?
That wasn't written by the NTSB which tends to be far more rigorous in their analysis and documentation. I've read hundreds of accident reports for air and rail.
TWA 800? As Jack Cashill reports in his book, TWA: The Crash, the Cover-up, and the Conspiracy, the cover-up went as far as the FBI creating bogus 302 forms for interviews that never happened, in which the interviewees recanted seeing a projectile rising toward the plane as reported in their one and only real interviews. That may have happened with just a few witnesses, but many dozens of good witnesses consistently reported an object rising to intersect the plane just before it exploded. The CIA and FBI pushed NTSB to ignore the witnesses. A free one-hour interview with Cashill covering some of these points: https://www.facebook.com/crowdsourcethetruth2/videos/twa-800-25-years-later-conspiracy-theory-or-epic-government-conspiracy-with-auth/770245513649846/
Yes, and I'm pretty sure the NTSB documented all the facts they gathered. Eye witnesses are always a crap shoot in accident investigations.
We have video in this case, and we'll have a good indication if the NTSB was messed with since the quality of their reports is usually very easy to spot.
It doesn't change anything I said. Warren report was political. NTSB can be influenced, but that will be far more apparent. Egypt air crash was also interfered with politically, but all the data is in the report and we can draw our own conclusions.
We also have 2 harbour pilots on board and cameras and telemetry.
Excellent assessment, John. No excuse offered so far has explained the *uncanny* accuracy of the so-called "random" turn to starboard that put the ship on a dead-center bullseye track into the critical support pylon. Even worse, once it achieved the perfect degree of turn to center its path into the pylon, it stopped turning and continued straight into the pylon. Random? Accident? My aunt fanny.....
Critical analysis, John. Thank you. Please keep at it. I, too, pray the NTSB gives the American public a thorough and honest investigation and report. However, I have my doubts. All in DC is polluted with propagandized double speak.
Experience of sailing a yacht, even a large one, misses out some essential knowledge. In the latter stages of MV Dali’s short journey to the collision with the bridge the bow was solidly aground. In the short period before that, the bow would have been moving very close to the edge of the channel. Amongst naval architects and ship handlers, it is well known that operations close to a bank (or any confined channel or indeed another vessel) cause interaction effects that generate enormous forces (proportional to the size of the vessel). If, as seems the case, the vessel bow got close to the starboard side of the channel an interactive force could have been created that “sucked” the vessel towards that channel edge. That would cause the appearance of a turn to starboard.
Hate to flog a dead horse... but I've done some more research and believe that: whilst within a port; prior to ballasting (done after leaving harbor); a large ship with powerful engine; with a clockwise rotating screw; wishing to go straight ahead; may need a rudder correction/offset/trim to starboard of up to 10degrees (or more) to maintain a straight course. Thus: upon engine fail; when the screw stops rotating; if the rudder can not be brought back to neutral (e.g. due to system-wide power fail); then there will be no more aft propeller walk; as a result the ship will now turn to starboard due to the rudder setting (which could be 10degrees or more). Thus, under the abovementioned conditions which all need to be confirmed, all that is needed to account for Dali's turn into the bridge is a main engine and rudder control failure right at the wrong moment. I'll note that if given knowledge of the abovementioned parameters (plus windspeed, tide, channel suction, and a few other parameters) it would be trivial to determine exactly when that wrong moment would need to be....
This is great Paul, second time I have read this and finally it is sinking in. This seems to be the simplest thing and the most believable; THIS is ALL that was required to explain it. Someone familiar with this ship simply needed to cause a power failure at the perfect time. THAT is it! Timing is important but this could all be figured out ahead of time making any ship / bridge over a channel ripe for disaster.
For others, let me re-phrase your genius concept for failure:
-- ships leaving port but not yet into open seas do not take on ballast to fully drop their props under water because of local contaminants.
-- Thus, they run down a bay having to offset the rudder in order to keep a straight line down the channel. Say, the rudder requires an 8 or 10° off-set to keep the ship running down center of channel with the prop splashing.
-- Power is lost, rudder stays offset and forward momentum keeps the boat running on A line-- no longer the original line! Without the prop turning over "Prop-walk" stops forcing bow back to port but the rudder is locked in place, offset, and pushing the opposite way.
-- Now, the offset rudder and ship with remaining momentum(a LOT) steer starboard; slowed only by water drag. Hello ship pylon!
-- If a standard offset is used for this practice, say 8°, foreknowledge can be useful to someone since it is easy to calculate the new angle, range to target, and timing.
The only questions remaining:
Did the prop finally engage when the bow stops its starboard move? thus, holding the bearing into the pylon?
Did the port anchor actually do some little bit after enough chain took hold?
I know why. You and McCullough have been turned. You're now a choas agent. You have a huge following and your job is to keep them on the fence of truth so they don't fall.head strong in it.
The starboard turn is most likely caused by the effect of the propeller going astern. The ship has a single screw and "propeller walk" or "paddle wheel" effect will cause this to happen. It's just the nature of a propeller turning through the water.
There would be no way to counter the propeller effect while going astern because there wasn't enough water flowing over the rudder and the ship was moving to fast for the bow thruster to be effective.
The VDR didn't lose power so much as it stopped recording engineering plant data, mostly likely because the power going out stopped the data flow from the engineering plant since every frigging thing in the engine room is electronicly controlled. I would've assumed that the electronics would've had a ups but that may have failed or may not be installed. From my understanding, the vdr only has to maintain voice recordings in the event of a power failure.
I'm not sure about the initial power failure but it could've been from a wide variety of things, some simple and some not so simple. I'm also not sure about the 45 second time requirement for the start of an emergency generator, I thought it was a minute but could be wrong, however, I've never seen one go over 15 seconds, though I've never worked with generators of the size used on this vessel.
It looks to me like the power failed for whatever reason, which caused the propulsion engine to shut down. Then power was restored, mostly likely from an autostart of a stand by generator and not the emergency generator. After power was restored, the main engine was started going full astern judging by the size of the cloud coming from the funnel. This is most likely what cause the swing to starboard that has everyone so worked up.
When they lost power, it would've been a near panick situation as the only thing lit would've been emergency lighting and once power was restored, the engineers have to get the engine going again. These engines aren't started by simply
pushing a button. All of the systems needed to make the engine operate are electrically driven and when power came back, they may not have restarted on their own, which would've meant running around the engine room doing it manually.
A lot was going on during this time by too few people and unfortunately they hit the bridge instead of making it safely through.
I believe that the ntsb and coast guard do a thorough and transparent investigation and in time we'll know for the most part what happened here.
Tri, you must be an electrician. . . and I think you have it right.
Don't you think that if they had left everything in "place"(rudder, engine OFF, not dropping anchor) they would have coasted on their 140° heading under the main span?
I think they just panicked after losing all visual bearings and Murphy's Law took over.
I've been a mariner for about 22 years, 12 of that as an engineering officer plus have other mechanical trades experience.
I agree that if they left everything as it was and went ahead full on the engine, once they restored the engine, they would've cleared the bridge.
But I'm not a captain or a pilot so I'm trying not to judge their actions. The pilot had seconds to make a decision and the captain had even less time to decide if he was going to follow the pilots suggestions, all while trying to focus through a near panick.
There is no evidence that they got the engine going again let alone going in reverse. Smoke from the stack in and of itself does not equal a restart. Most likely the excess fuel burn of a choked engine.
I have no idea what actually stopped the engine. I see no evidence that it ever started up again. To me a black smoke burn from a diesel engine is a sign of excessive fuel in the cylinders. I call that a choked engine. Thinking about it a little bit more a choked engine changes the air/fuel ratio by restricting the air to increase the relative presence of fuel. My apologies. I'm misspeaking. In the case of a diesel engine it would be flooding of fuel rather than a restriction of air so definitely not a "choking". Corrected then it should be "Most likely the excess fuel of a flooded engine." Any better?
I dont think you are missspeaking necessarily. As I understand what you are saying then I would agree with you.
OK so in the sense that you are explaining this then yes you are correct. Black smoke from a diesel engine can mean that there is a imbalance in the air/fuel ratio... if there the air filter is clogged then you would see black smoke.
But a diesel engine under an heavy load will also smoke heavily and an engine going from start to full speed as fast as it can mechanically will cause that imbalance that you are talking about because the engine is injecting fuel into the cylinders at max rate but the engine isn't turning fast enough for the proper amount of air to be admitted into the engine. Too much fuel and not enough air...The engine is trying to accelerate under a full load and that's why there is a thick cloud of smoke coming from the funnel and that's why it starts to clear up before the second power failure and also at the same time as the pivot to starboard. As the engine speeds up, there air/fuel ratio will start to come more into balance.
There is indication that the propulsion engine was restarted and that the smoke coming from the funnel is from the engine going astern and here is why I say this.
If you watch a video of the ship approaching the bridge, before the initial power failure then you would see no smoke coming from the funnel in the background lights. The engine is burning clean, just as it should.
Then the blackout occurs.
Once the electrical plant is restored and the lights came back on, that's when the large cloud comes out the funnel and the vessel starts to pivot to starboard. That engine can't run without electricity.
There are two ways to stop a diesel engine, stop the fuel delivery and stop the air flow to the engine. Stopping fuel delivery is the normal way and stopping the airflow is the emergency method. The emergency method on engines that big tends to break things.
When the power went out, the fuel pumps and lube oil pumps would've shut down. A loss of lube oil pressure will automatically shut the engine down by stopping the fuel delivery to the engine, thereby shutting it down.
If that didn't do it then the the loss of power to the fuel pumps would've stopped the engine. There wouldn't be any fuel going to the engine in order to mess up the air/fuel ratio that we discussed earlier as the injectors would've pumped whatever available fuel until there was none left in the piping.
Another indicator that the engine was running in reverse is that the stern swung to port and the bow swung to starboard, towards the bridge. This tells me that propeller was turning because the turning propeller has a characteristic known as the "paddle wheel effect" and will move the cause that exact movement that we see in the video.
Another indication is that the vessel was slowing down when it hit the bridge. That could've been from the anchor dragging but I don't know how when they dropped the anchor.
John, excellent and timely analysis of Dali’s collision with the bridge.
Let’s see what will come out of the official investigation. I have one serious prediction: the National Transportation Safety Board will NOT ask any of the critical questions you have outlined in your analysis.
It is apparent that the Deep State operatives are completely uninterested to know what and why the catastrophic crash occurred. They may have personal interests in knowing the truth, but their bosses will give them hell if they do a good job.
I am not saying that it didn't happen and the bridge was not destroyed, it's obvious it was, but did it really happen as we are being told? I seriously doubt it as everything we are told these days is a lie. Please prove me wrong that that is not the case. If we peons are not right at the cite of the incidents happening all over the country and world and witnessing it with our own eyes, we will never know the truth. There are too many strange events during this incident to call it all true. I question EVERYTHING these days, that is the way I roll, I am not sorry if that offends you!
Considering the rock bottom credibility of government agencies and potential conflicts of interest, it would be better if an independent marine consultant is also hired to prepare an independent report.
Thanks for this detailed investigation. Is there any evidence this ship lost power at any other time in its history?
Sure looks like this ship was steered into the bridge.
It was just serviced within days of this incident, not sure what was supposedly done, but chances are, it's a lie anyway, just one more way to blame it on someone and hide the truth!
sounds like fear porn
Don’t click on cara’s links!
yep. Thanks for pointing it out to the folks.
I did NOT click on it!
Do you have the book? I'm wondering if it's as good as the infomercial says, i5 sounds intriguing
I read where, during a routine required inspection, it was written up for electrical insufficiencies and/or malfunctions within the previous year.
I'm a master helmsman. I did an article giving my theory about what happened you might be interested in. https://michaelsuede.substack.com/p/master-helmsmans-take-on-the-dali
What about the anchor? If there was only one anchor thrown from one side of the ship, this could have exerted a drag force and caused a change in the ship’s heading.
I would expect the anchor to have minimal effect over the distance we are talking about. I address that in my article.
Really? If it continuously dragged along the sea floor? It must have had some effect.
Very little. A ship the size of Dali could literally drag a 700 ton tugboat underwater like a play toy.
So why did the captain then threw the anchor if it had essentially no effect?? Was he that dumb?
To put it in perspective, the anchor and three shots of chain probably weight somewhere around 50 tons. The Dali itself has a displacement of 160,000 tons.
Because something is better than nothing. At most it might have shaved a knot of speed off before impact, probably less.
When you say the anchor would have minimal effect, do mean like a 7% or 8% change in degrees off existing course (i.e. 141 deg. to 151)?
If you add minimal effect with the anchor-lets say 4 or 5%--and a minimal effect of current--lets say .5% to 1% and a minimal effect of wind--again lets say .5% to 1%, you pretty quickly get to the 7% or 8% change (i.e. 141 deg. to 151 Deg.) in course.
Note the time line that the it didn't change course until after the anchor was dropped.
Not saying this changes John Leak's story. Though I think it should be considered.
Minimal effect like it's not even there minimal effect.
Thanks for the response, Micheal.
So, basically zero effect, in consequence?
Again, if you look at the time line, it slows from 8.7 to 7.7 in a matter of seconds the anchor is dropped. (this doesn't sound close to zero effect)
Additionally, if you look at the percentage changed in speed (~11.5%) this is pretty close to the percentage change in direction (about 7.5%) and you would expect the effect of the anchor to a larger effect on speed that direction.
Anyway, who knows....
I think the anchor did in fact contribute to the loss of speed. I don't think it contributed much to any change of direction. It might have helped bring the bow to port a tiny bit faster, but nothing that would make any real difference. The loss of one knot over the distance given due to the anchor sounds reasonable to me.
Reportedly it was the port anchor that was ordered to be dropped. If the port anchor were dragging, it would be exerting a steering force to port as well as a braking force. But the ship turned aggressively to starboard. Impossible that the port anchor could've done that.
The only reason I can think of that the pilot would order the port anchor dropped is if someone has taken control of the ship remotely, and the pilot is trying to fight the turn to starboard with the only tool he has.
Anchor was dropped after the ship had already turned into the bridge. My article explains what I think happened.
Curious - his linked article explains the futile use of the anchor. Read it too fast perhaps.
they did throw out an anchor
Thank you for that straightforward non-conspiranoid fantasy explanation, Michael!
I'll go with that.
Excellent blog on this subject, Michael Suede. What I find amazing is that they managed to clear the bridge of all vehicle traffic just moments before the ship hit it. Watching those last cars drive off, in the footage you shared, is amazing. What luck that they were able to do that, or the loss of life would have been far worse. Still, this was horrible for those men working on the bridge.
John, The only thing of which I am confident is that we will NEVER get an accurate and transparent report on this disaster. Have you read the Warren Commission report lately?
That wasn't written by the NTSB which tends to be far more rigorous in their analysis and documentation. I've read hundreds of accident reports for air and rail.
TWA 800? As Jack Cashill reports in his book, TWA: The Crash, the Cover-up, and the Conspiracy, the cover-up went as far as the FBI creating bogus 302 forms for interviews that never happened, in which the interviewees recanted seeing a projectile rising toward the plane as reported in their one and only real interviews. That may have happened with just a few witnesses, but many dozens of good witnesses consistently reported an object rising to intersect the plane just before it exploded. The CIA and FBI pushed NTSB to ignore the witnesses. A free one-hour interview with Cashill covering some of these points: https://www.facebook.com/crowdsourcethetruth2/videos/twa-800-25-years-later-conspiracy-theory-or-epic-government-conspiracy-with-auth/770245513649846/
Yes, and I'm pretty sure the NTSB documented all the facts they gathered. Eye witnesses are always a crap shoot in accident investigations.
We have video in this case, and we'll have a good indication if the NTSB was messed with since the quality of their reports is usually very easy to spot.
It doesn't change anything I said. Warren report was political. NTSB can be influenced, but that will be far more apparent. Egypt air crash was also interfered with politically, but all the data is in the report and we can draw our own conclusions.
We also have 2 harbour pilots on board and cameras and telemetry.
Excellent assessment, John. No excuse offered so far has explained the *uncanny* accuracy of the so-called "random" turn to starboard that put the ship on a dead-center bullseye track into the critical support pylon. Even worse, once it achieved the perfect degree of turn to center its path into the pylon, it stopped turning and continued straight into the pylon. Random? Accident? My aunt fanny.....
Zactly.
The video is toooooo obvious.
It stops turning and heads right for the camera-- and bridge!
My thoughts are that this kind of complicated, deniable situation makes a perfect cover for sabotage. They wouldn't do anything less.
It's amazing various American states have never been more vulnerable to saboteurs in history than before. It has to inside jobs?
How about we follow the money i.e. who is to profit by the lost of bridge? Insurance claims etc
Critical analysis, John. Thank you. Please keep at it. I, too, pray the NTSB gives the American public a thorough and honest investigation and report. However, I have my doubts. All in DC is polluted with propagandized double speak.
I can understnad your cynicism about the NTSB. I was very impressed with their analysis of a passenger train derailment in 2017.
Thank you, Susan J.
I remain skeptical. Sadly.
I believe your skepticism is appropriate.
Thank you, Susan J.
Much appreciated.
Experience of sailing a yacht, even a large one, misses out some essential knowledge. In the latter stages of MV Dali’s short journey to the collision with the bridge the bow was solidly aground. In the short period before that, the bow would have been moving very close to the edge of the channel. Amongst naval architects and ship handlers, it is well known that operations close to a bank (or any confined channel or indeed another vessel) cause interaction effects that generate enormous forces (proportional to the size of the vessel). If, as seems the case, the vessel bow got close to the starboard side of the channel an interactive force could have been created that “sucked” the vessel towards that channel edge. That would cause the appearance of a turn to starboard.
naaaaaw.
It was flying straight and true, even after the 1st loss of power; was not near the edge of the channel.
What evidence is there saying it ran aground? Come on, Man!
Hate to flog a dead horse... but I've done some more research and believe that: whilst within a port; prior to ballasting (done after leaving harbor); a large ship with powerful engine; with a clockwise rotating screw; wishing to go straight ahead; may need a rudder correction/offset/trim to starboard of up to 10degrees (or more) to maintain a straight course. Thus: upon engine fail; when the screw stops rotating; if the rudder can not be brought back to neutral (e.g. due to system-wide power fail); then there will be no more aft propeller walk; as a result the ship will now turn to starboard due to the rudder setting (which could be 10degrees or more). Thus, under the abovementioned conditions which all need to be confirmed, all that is needed to account for Dali's turn into the bridge is a main engine and rudder control failure right at the wrong moment. I'll note that if given knowledge of the abovementioned parameters (plus windspeed, tide, channel suction, and a few other parameters) it would be trivial to determine exactly when that wrong moment would need to be....
This is great Paul, second time I have read this and finally it is sinking in. This seems to be the simplest thing and the most believable; THIS is ALL that was required to explain it. Someone familiar with this ship simply needed to cause a power failure at the perfect time. THAT is it! Timing is important but this could all be figured out ahead of time making any ship / bridge over a channel ripe for disaster.
For others, let me re-phrase your genius concept for failure:
-- ships leaving port but not yet into open seas do not take on ballast to fully drop their props under water because of local contaminants.
-- Thus, they run down a bay having to offset the rudder in order to keep a straight line down the channel. Say, the rudder requires an 8 or 10° off-set to keep the ship running down center of channel with the prop splashing.
-- Power is lost, rudder stays offset and forward momentum keeps the boat running on A line-- no longer the original line! Without the prop turning over "Prop-walk" stops forcing bow back to port but the rudder is locked in place, offset, and pushing the opposite way.
-- Now, the offset rudder and ship with remaining momentum(a LOT) steer starboard; slowed only by water drag. Hello ship pylon!
-- If a standard offset is used for this practice, say 8°, foreknowledge can be useful to someone since it is easy to calculate the new angle, range to target, and timing.
The only questions remaining:
Did the prop finally engage when the bow stops its starboard move? thus, holding the bearing into the pylon?
Did the port anchor actually do some little bit after enough chain took hold?
edited for more clarity4/4/24
Sounds like an argument to convince people it was an accident without any mention it could be intentional? Why?
I know why. You and McCullough have been turned. You're now a choas agent. You have a huge following and your job is to keep them on the fence of truth so they don't fall.head strong in it.
The starboard turn is most likely caused by the effect of the propeller going astern. The ship has a single screw and "propeller walk" or "paddle wheel" effect will cause this to happen. It's just the nature of a propeller turning through the water.
There would be no way to counter the propeller effect while going astern because there wasn't enough water flowing over the rudder and the ship was moving to fast for the bow thruster to be effective.
The VDR didn't lose power so much as it stopped recording engineering plant data, mostly likely because the power going out stopped the data flow from the engineering plant since every frigging thing in the engine room is electronicly controlled. I would've assumed that the electronics would've had a ups but that may have failed or may not be installed. From my understanding, the vdr only has to maintain voice recordings in the event of a power failure.
I'm not sure about the initial power failure but it could've been from a wide variety of things, some simple and some not so simple. I'm also not sure about the 45 second time requirement for the start of an emergency generator, I thought it was a minute but could be wrong, however, I've never seen one go over 15 seconds, though I've never worked with generators of the size used on this vessel.
It looks to me like the power failed for whatever reason, which caused the propulsion engine to shut down. Then power was restored, mostly likely from an autostart of a stand by generator and not the emergency generator. After power was restored, the main engine was started going full astern judging by the size of the cloud coming from the funnel. This is most likely what cause the swing to starboard that has everyone so worked up.
When they lost power, it would've been a near panick situation as the only thing lit would've been emergency lighting and once power was restored, the engineers have to get the engine going again. These engines aren't started by simply
pushing a button. All of the systems needed to make the engine operate are electrically driven and when power came back, they may not have restarted on their own, which would've meant running around the engine room doing it manually.
A lot was going on during this time by too few people and unfortunately they hit the bridge instead of making it safely through.
I believe that the ntsb and coast guard do a thorough and transparent investigation and in time we'll know for the most part what happened here.
Tri, you must be an electrician. . . and I think you have it right.
Don't you think that if they had left everything in "place"(rudder, engine OFF, not dropping anchor) they would have coasted on their 140° heading under the main span?
I think they just panicked after losing all visual bearings and Murphy's Law took over.
I've been a mariner for about 22 years, 12 of that as an engineering officer plus have other mechanical trades experience.
I agree that if they left everything as it was and went ahead full on the engine, once they restored the engine, they would've cleared the bridge.
But I'm not a captain or a pilot so I'm trying not to judge their actions. The pilot had seconds to make a decision and the captain had even less time to decide if he was going to follow the pilots suggestions, all while trying to focus through a near panick.
There is no evidence that they got the engine going again let alone going in reverse. Smoke from the stack in and of itself does not equal a restart. Most likely the excess fuel burn of a choked engine.
What "choked" a 50,000ish horsepower engine?
I have no idea what actually stopped the engine. I see no evidence that it ever started up again. To me a black smoke burn from a diesel engine is a sign of excessive fuel in the cylinders. I call that a choked engine. Thinking about it a little bit more a choked engine changes the air/fuel ratio by restricting the air to increase the relative presence of fuel. My apologies. I'm misspeaking. In the case of a diesel engine it would be flooding of fuel rather than a restriction of air so definitely not a "choking". Corrected then it should be "Most likely the excess fuel of a flooded engine." Any better?
I dont think you are missspeaking necessarily. As I understand what you are saying then I would agree with you.
OK so in the sense that you are explaining this then yes you are correct. Black smoke from a diesel engine can mean that there is a imbalance in the air/fuel ratio... if there the air filter is clogged then you would see black smoke.
But a diesel engine under an heavy load will also smoke heavily and an engine going from start to full speed as fast as it can mechanically will cause that imbalance that you are talking about because the engine is injecting fuel into the cylinders at max rate but the engine isn't turning fast enough for the proper amount of air to be admitted into the engine. Too much fuel and not enough air...The engine is trying to accelerate under a full load and that's why there is a thick cloud of smoke coming from the funnel and that's why it starts to clear up before the second power failure and also at the same time as the pivot to starboard. As the engine speeds up, there air/fuel ratio will start to come more into balance.
There is indication that the propulsion engine was restarted and that the smoke coming from the funnel is from the engine going astern and here is why I say this.
If you watch a video of the ship approaching the bridge, before the initial power failure then you would see no smoke coming from the funnel in the background lights. The engine is burning clean, just as it should.
Then the blackout occurs.
Once the electrical plant is restored and the lights came back on, that's when the large cloud comes out the funnel and the vessel starts to pivot to starboard. That engine can't run without electricity.
There are two ways to stop a diesel engine, stop the fuel delivery and stop the air flow to the engine. Stopping fuel delivery is the normal way and stopping the airflow is the emergency method. The emergency method on engines that big tends to break things.
When the power went out, the fuel pumps and lube oil pumps would've shut down. A loss of lube oil pressure will automatically shut the engine down by stopping the fuel delivery to the engine, thereby shutting it down.
If that didn't do it then the the loss of power to the fuel pumps would've stopped the engine. There wouldn't be any fuel going to the engine in order to mess up the air/fuel ratio that we discussed earlier as the injectors would've pumped whatever available fuel until there was none left in the piping.
Another indicator that the engine was running in reverse is that the stern swung to port and the bow swung to starboard, towards the bridge. This tells me that propeller was turning because the turning propeller has a characteristic known as the "paddle wheel effect" and will move the cause that exact movement that we see in the video.
Another indication is that the vessel was slowing down when it hit the bridge. That could've been from the anchor dragging but I don't know how when they dropped the anchor.
John, excellent and timely analysis of Dali’s collision with the bridge.
Let’s see what will come out of the official investigation. I have one serious prediction: the National Transportation Safety Board will NOT ask any of the critical questions you have outlined in your analysis.
It is apparent that the Deep State operatives are completely uninterested to know what and why the catastrophic crash occurred. They may have personal interests in knowing the truth, but their bosses will give them hell if they do a good job.
Maternity leave trumps serious investigations sir
that was great, I forgot about Buttagigger!
Ship happens! Have you looked at the size of that thing? It's HUGE! Not everything is a psyop!
Excellent explanation.
I find it strange that there was not the slightest wake to be seen as the ship was in motion, it looks like a created vid to me!
oh for heaven's sake.
I am not saying that it didn't happen and the bridge was not destroyed, it's obvious it was, but did it really happen as we are being told? I seriously doubt it as everything we are told these days is a lie. Please prove me wrong that that is not the case. If we peons are not right at the cite of the incidents happening all over the country and world and witnessing it with our own eyes, we will never know the truth. There are too many strange events during this incident to call it all true. I question EVERYTHING these days, that is the way I roll, I am not sorry if that offends you!
Considering the rock bottom credibility of government agencies and potential conflicts of interest, it would be better if an independent marine consultant is also hired to prepare an independent report.