| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| awsome day at galvaston http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=96 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | didibii [ August 7th, 2010, 11:45 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: awsome day at galvaston | ||
Galveston is so nasty. As soon as you go to a real beach (think Florida, the Bahamas, Carolinas, etc), you'll realize just how nasty it is. I never said it was clean and i never even swim there, but it is true texass gulf is just nasty the water is so freakin dark, and i have been to real beachs in europ and they where way better then texas gulf.Tarballs, nasty brown water, that funky smell you can't really place but you know is not good, and the 19 merchant ships I counted offshore that are most likely dumping their ballast into the water for me to swim in really put me off the place. The Texas Gulf coast is a commercial and industrial coast, nothing more nothing less. Galveston is so nasty. As soon as you go to a real beach (think Florida, the Bahamas, Carolinas, etc), you'll realize just how nasty it is. Tarballs, nasty brown water, that funky smell you can't really place but you know is not good, and the 19 merchant ships I counted offshore that are most likely dumping their ballast into the water for me to swim in really put me off the place. The Texas Gulf coast is a commercial and industrial coast, nothing more nothing less.
I didn't say you were. A Mexican "dog" is a large rate.
I really dont under stand what you are trying to say. im not from texas or from mexico. I AM ASIAN. <.<
|
|||
| Author: | ezgo394 [ August 7th, 2010, 11:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: awsome day at galvaston |
It's a joke. A Mexican Dog is a "Large Rat." |
|
| Author: | radagast477 [ August 8th, 2010, 2:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: awsome day at galvaston |
Its about a family that took home a Mexican "dog" while on vacation only to find out it was a rat from the vet. |
|
| Author: | Novice [ August 8th, 2010, 4:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: awsome day at galvaston |
Most ship used to burn what was known as 'Bunkers fuel' which was so thick it was almost solid. Ships did not use diesel or any refined product, and so in fact usee their fuel tanks for ballast (a prime example was the idea behind the long endurance of the Leander class frigates of the RN, compared to the Type 12 class) |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ August 8th, 2010, 4:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: awsome day at galvaston |
Trust me on this one. I work on aforementioned ships, I know all about heavy fuel. There's some key differences between military and civilian ships. First off, military ships aren't restricted by IMO regulations, the same regulations that that require two-valve and ODM separation between any kind of oily water and the sea. Additionally, when discharging oily water, a civilian ship has to do at least 5kts, be more than 12nm off shore and they're only allowed to discharge one liter of oil per nm sailed. And since by and large the only time ships discharge ballast water is during cargo operations... And what are they supposed to do if they're to be loaded to the limit, but their ballast tanks are filled to the brim with fuel. They can hardly dump it. Secondly, they tend to run on highly refined light fuels such as diesel or Jet fuel. This means that any water in the tank will settle on the bottom, effectively separating it from the fuel. Heavy fuel, as the name implies, is far heavier and has almost the same density as water. In order to separate the water and HFO you need to run it through centrifuges, and even the most effective ones can't handle more than 1.5% water. And lastly, civilian ships really doesn't gain anything from it. Pretty much all ships build within the last twenty or thirty years has the range to cross the Atlantic, and there's rarely anything to gain by having more bunker than that. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|