On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.

On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.

You'd think the billionaire passengers might have asked a question or two.

In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>
> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.

No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>>
>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>
>No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.

Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.

The company claims it was designed for 13,000 feet, but experts are
criticizing the choice of carbon fiber hull, that the hull really wasn't
meant for that depth. I can't find a story stating what a more practical
depth rating should have been.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:57:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
>>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
>>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
>>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
>>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>>>
>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>
>>No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>
>Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>
>The company claims it was designed for 13,000 feet, but experts are
>criticizing the choice of carbon fiber hull, that the hull really wasn't
>meant for that depth. I can't find a story stating what a more practical
>depth rating should have been.

Wasn't the portal at the front of the company only rated for something
like 1300 feet by the company that made it? Seems like they were
pushing their luck from the very beginning by pushing their available
tech beyond what it designed to do. They just got lucky the first few
times when it didn't fail on them.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:57:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
>>>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
>>>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
>>>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
>>>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>>>>
>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>>
>>>No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>>
>>Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>>
>>The company claims it was designed for 13,000 feet, but experts are
>>criticizing the choice of carbon fiber hull, that the hull really wasn't
>>meant for that depth. I can't find a story stating what a more practical
>>depth rating should have been.
>
>Wasn't the portal at the front of the company only rated for something
>like 1300 feet by the company that made it?

I saw that in anim's post in another thread after I wrote that.

>. . .

On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
>>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
>>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
>>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
>>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>>>
>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>
>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>
> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>
You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
>>>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
>>>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
>>>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
>>>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>>>>
>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>>
>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>>
>> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>>
> You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.
>

I’ve been leaving off the units because the point was 1300 out of 4000 and
I’ve read both feet and meters.

Meters make sense as it would put the intended depth of the submersible
dive at the depth of the Titanic. 4000 m equals 13,000 feet.

The window was rated for 1300 m or 4265 feet.

This is the kind of thing that gets Mars landers, splattered all over the
surface.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 6/23/2023 9:21 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
>>>>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
>>>>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
>>>>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
>>>>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>>>>>
>>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>>>
>>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>>>
>>> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>>>
>> You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.
>>
>
> I’ve been leaving off the units because the point was 1300 out of 4000 and
> I’ve read both feet and meters.
>
> Meters make sense as it would put the intended depth of the submersible
> dive at the depth of the Titanic. 4000 m equals 13,000 feet.
>
> The window was rated for 1300 m or 4265 feet.
>
> This is the kind of thing that gets Mars landers, splattered all over the
> surface.
>
Yup.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:57:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>
>>No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.

Which suggests somebody was confused between 4000 feet and 4000
metres...

On 6/23/2023 11:51 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:57:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>>
>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>
> Which suggests somebody was confused between 4000 feet and 4000
> metres...

Isn't that what I said?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the
>>>> implosion of the submersible with an oceanographer who
>>>> has been taken to extreme depths in a Navy submersible.
>>>> She was describing the care the Navy takes with its
>>>> vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested
>>>> electronics on board due to concerns about affecting
>>>> electrical system.
>>>>
>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in
>>>> question was rated for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at
>>>> 4000 ft.
>>>
>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500
>>> feet deep.
>>
>> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>>
> You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.
>
That's exactly the problem.

The viewport was rated for 1400 *meters* yet the
sub was sent to the 4000 meter level.

Add in the iffy carbon fiber shell (degradation of
materials) during the multiple dives, and you've got
a disaster waiting to happen.

Which it did.

Nyssa, who listened to news broadcasts from several
sources interviewing several experts over the past
week

Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the
>>>>> implosion of the submersible with an oceanographer who
>>>>> has been taken to extreme depths in a Navy submersible.
>>>>> She was describing the care the Navy takes with its
>>>>> vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested
>>>>> electronics on board due to concerns about affecting
>>>>> electrical system.
>>>>>
>>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in
>>>>> question was rated for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at
>>>>> 4000 ft.
>>>>
>>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500
>>>> feet deep.
>>>
>>> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>>>
>> You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.
>>
> That's exactly the problem.
>
> The viewport was rated for 1400 *meters* yet the
> sub was sent to the 4000 meter level.
>
> Add in the iffy carbon fiber shell (degradation of
> materials) during the multiple dives, and you've got
> a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Which it did.

Apparently the carbon fiber shell made a few dives, but the experts said
that it would be more likely to fail each time it went down.

It’s unclear how many descents the window made.

>
> Nyssa, who listened to news broadcasts from several
> sources interviewing several experts over the past
> week

Let’s not forget the white guys in charge of this refusing to listen to the
white guys telling them it was going to fail because those white guys are
white.

Remember the end of Bride of Frankenstein, when the creature says WE BELONG
DEAD?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk wrote:

> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the
>>>>>> implosion of the submersible with an oceanographer
>>>>>> who has been taken to extreme depths in a Navy
>>>>>> submersible. She was describing the care the Navy
>>>>>> takes with its vessel and that no one is allowed to
>>>>>> bring untested electronics on board due to concerns
>>>>>> about affecting electrical system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in
>>>>>> question was rated for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at
>>>>>> 4000 ft.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500
>>>>> feet deep.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>>>>
>>> You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.
>>>
>> That's exactly the problem.
>>
>> The viewport was rated for 1400 *meters* yet the
>> sub was sent to the 4000 meter level.
>>
>> Add in the iffy carbon fiber shell (degradation of
>> materials) during the multiple dives, and you've got
>> a disaster waiting to happen.
>>
>> Which it did.
>
> Apparently the carbon fiber shell made a few dives, but
> the experts said that it would be more likely to fail each
> time it went down.
>
> It?s unclear how many descents the window made.
>
>
>>
>> Nyssa, who listened to news broadcasts from several
>> sources interviewing several experts over the past
>> week
>
> Let?s not forget the white guys in charge of this refusing
> to listen to the white guys telling them it was going to
> fail because those white guys are white.
>
> Remember the end of Bride of Frankenstein, when the
> creature says WE BELONG DEAD?
>
I don't care if the engineer is pink with purple polka
dots. If he/she tells me that a component is only
good to 1400 meters and I'm planning to go to 4000 meters,
I'd reconsider my plans for a an unnecessary sightseeing
excursion.

Nyssa, who knows that 400 atmospheres of pressure isn't
something you can hold off with a stop sign or happy
thoughts

Nyssa wrote:
> >
> I don't care if the engineer is pink with purple polka
> dots. If he/she tells me that a component is only
> good to 1400 meters and I'm planning to go to 4000 meters,
> I'd reconsider my plans for a an unnecessary sightseeing
> excursion.

Four people paying $250,000 each (total $1 million), was obviously
enough to override common sense.

Especially if you are the sort of entrepreneur that believes health and
safety standards hinder innovation...

Alas, the same entrepreneur paid for his beliefs with his life.

In article
<1254874923.709272774.466732.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> > On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
> >>>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
> >>>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
> >>>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
> >>>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
> >>>>
> >>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
> >>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
> >>>
> >>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
> >>
> >> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
> >>
> > You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.
> >
> I’ve been leaving off the units because the point was 1300 out of 4000 and
> I’ve read both feet and meters.
>
> Meters make sense as it would put the intended depth of the submersible
> dive at the depth of the Titanic. 4000 m equals 13,000 feet.
>
> The window was rated for 1300 m or 4265 feet.

Yes, but the real question is how many AUs was it rated for?

On 2023-06-24 10:30:48 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:

> On 6/23/2023 11:51 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:57:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>>>
>>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>>
>> Which suggests somebody was confused between 4000 feet and 4000
>> metres...
>
> Isn't that what I said?

[singing:]
Nobody says it, better
Makes me feel sad for the rest
Nobody does it half as good as you
Baby, you're the best!

--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>On 2023-06-24 10:30:48 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>On 6/23/2023 11:51 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>>>On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>>>>for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.

>>>>>No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.

>>>Which suggests somebody was confused between 4000 feet and 4000
>>>metres...

>>Isn't that what I said?

>[singing:]
>Nobody says it, better
>Makes me feel sad for the rest
>Nobody does it half as good as you
>Baby, you're the best!

Thank you Carly.

On 6/24/2023 11:31 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-06-24 10:30:48 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>> On 6/23/2023 11:51 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> Sat, 24 Jun 2023 02:57:50 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>>>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>
>>>>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>
>>>> Which suggests somebody was confused between 4000 feet and 4000
>>>> metres...
>
>>> Isn't that what I said?
>
>> [singing:]
>> Nobody says it, better
>> Makes me feel sad for the rest
>> Nobody does it half as good as you
>> Baby, you're the best!
>
> Thank you Carly.

:D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1254874923.709272774.466732.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2023 7:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <u75aa2$3rmc1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On a radio news report, there was discussion of the implosion of the
>>>>>> submersible with an oceanographer who has been taken to extreme depths
>>>>>> in a Navy submersible. She was describing the care the Navy takes with
>>>>>> its vessel and that no one is allowed to bring untested electronics on
>>>>>> board due to concerns about affecting electrical system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On this report, it was stated that the submersible in question was rated
>>>>>> for 1400 ft. The Titanic sunk at 4000 ft.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the Titanic came to rest on the bottom at 12,500 feet deep.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. I can find that depth in reporting.
>>>>
>>> You or the reporter may be confusing meters and feet.
>>>
>> I’ve been leaving off the units because the point was 1300 out of 4000 and
>> I’ve read both feet and meters.
>>
>> Meters make sense as it would put the intended depth of the submersible
>> dive at the depth of the Titanic. 4000 m equals 13,000 feet.
>>
>> The window was rated for 1300 m or 4265 feet.
>
> Yes, but the real question is how many AUs was it rated for?
>

Only two in the directors cut, because the guys doing the directors cut
have tiny little minds.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:

>Let's not forget the white guys in charge of this refusing to listen to the
>white guys telling them it was going to fail because those white guys are
>white.

Something occurred to me while watching the video of them saying they wanted
"inspirational" employees running things.

Just who were they trying to inspire?

--
Let's go Brandon!