Does a capital ship sinking actually SUCK a swimmer down to drown?

True. I'm no longer convinced. (Even though I doubt mythbusters on general principles). If one were right by the ship when it went quickly down, one would fall into the hole it left, but the water it pushed aside would be crashing back right after the ship passed also. How deep the person would go is a question.

I think if you were standing on the deck, whether the deck was horizontal or leaning, you could drop as fast as the ship did. Why not? Until there was enough water surrouding you for buoyancy to matter.

But if you were 3 inches from the ship, already floating in the water, would you fall over like in a waterfall? I think so, but like I say, you'd be competing with the water to see who and what dropped first.

One could experiement with little floating balls and big rocks dropped close to them, or better yet, held close to them at surface level and then released. A method for determining how deep they go would be needed.

Anyhow my point originally was no swirling. I coudl have kept silent on other stuff.

Nautical society has advantage of collective experience of huge number of people, surviving the ship sinking.

Even if I had been Nobel laureate for physics, sailors would know more about surviving on sea than me.

If personalizing, Sea has already laughed to many theoretical thoughts.

Dne 22/12/2015 v 05:36 M. Stradbury napsal(a):

I have seen a video where a boat was in a lab sinked by this way,

in document about the Bermuda triangle, following the hypothesis about sudden huge gas release from the sea bad or underwater vulcanos.

Sinking a swimmer with density close to water is much easier than sinking a boat.

Dne 22/12/2015 v 07:06 O napsal(a):

I agree it is the best to get far from a wreck independently on if whirl sucking is a danger or not.

I knew a guy who drowned in club soda.

I think there was a lot of scotch, too.

For most things, perhaps. But how many sailors have experience of a sinking, much less such experience from the the immediate vicinity of the ship. Those who got sucked down, if any, won't be around to tell the tale. Those who didn't get sucked down, and survived, would be counter-examples.

Sylvia.

I do not say current sailors, but history of survival records and withnesses.

There are 2 other options.

Those surviving seeing others being sucked down, Those being sucked down not enough to die.

But the did not make any attempt to maintain geometrical similarity.

IF a sailor size was 1/4 of a ship size, he would not be sucked either.

I am not sure, if the viscosity has to be scaled as well for that matter, but I guess it has.

As I mentioned in my other post the Mythbusters do not care much about reliability of their experiments and interpretations.

mythbusters is a crock.

Per M. Stradbury:

Dunno what a capital ship is but am guessing it's big.

I saw an interview clip in which Lord Louis Mountbatten told of surviving his destroyer's sinking - along with a senior NCO who said at the time something like "Well sir, the scum always rises to the surface" so I am guessing that both were in the water when the ship went down under them.

My bad for not defining it, but you, sir, are correct, although in looking it up, I realized I was not correct:

Yes. The main mechanism iirc is that air escaping from the sinking ship causes enough bubbles that the swimmer can't stay afloat, and sinks too deep to get back to the surface.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Per M. Stradbury:

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

Ever heard of WWI and WWII?

Lots of ships sunk and lots of detailed records.

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat, for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest so far were:

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a very "tiny" ship. b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging, falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific' evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants and toy ships or something).

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find out the answer.

Dne 22/12/2015 v 22:50 M. Stradbury napsal(a):

Be aware of surface tension.

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

Mike.

If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

Tony Hwang wrote: - show quoted text - "Basic fluid mechanics. You know that the swirl direction of opposite of Southern hemisphere. CCW and CW. Rotating earth. "

Coriolis does not apply to toilets. The direction of rotation in a toilet bowl is determined by how the jets(holes underneath the rim) are angled.