Mineral process engineer here. We are always watching the moisture content of mineral concentrates (note, these aren't ores) to keep the moisture high enough to avoid dust explosions and low enough to not liquify. Gotta meet both criteria.
@@ValCronin if its reactive with oxygen, yes. things you'd never think could burn act different when they are given a ton of surface area to react with the 20% atmospheric oxygen. coal dust is a well known example, despite coal being relatively hard to ignite in chunks , as a dust it readily explodes.
@@ValCronin Most metals are flammable if in a sufficiently fine dust. Remember that rusting is just very slow burning. Steel wool will burn, for example. 'Mineral' is a bit vaguer. If it's already an oxide (bauxite appears to be a mix of various oxides and a few hydroxides), it probably can't be burnt further with air. Other salts are probably also non-flammable I think.
Excellent discussion. Another hazardous material is metal turnings. Instead of liquefaction, you have fire to worry about. Metal turnings are coated with oil and where the oil isn't they will rust. The oxidation process generates heat to a point the oil residue will ignite. The USCG checks vessels transporting these metal turnings. Each hold has temperatures taken at various places and must be at or below a temperature listed in a Code of Federal Regulation administered by the USCG. Fire at sea can ruin your day. Chief Makoi, thank you for your very informative videos. May you have smooth seas and a following wind.
Enjoyed the clear explanation as to why baffled cargo bays are not used. I thank you for sharing you seafaring life and knowledge with us. Well done Chief MAKOi.
But he didn't explain it. He talked around the issue with circular reasoning. The solution to the "bulk carriers are not specialized ships" is to make a regulation that requires a specialized baffled ship to carry cargo subject to liquefaction. My guess is that, him being Chief, his Ship's Owner would not be happy with him using the R-word out loud, even on his personal channel. He says it would not be economical, but if the only way to ship bauxite is in a baffled ship, the playing field is leveled. The same was said about double-hulled oil tankers back in the day.
@@Markle2k Bauxite is fine to ship if the moisture content is kept low. Ship owners, Captains, and insurance companies push to load problem-free cargo and to stop loading if there are issues. Baffling would likely only prevent 1 shipment from going bad a year, out of many thousands of safe voyages.
@@Markle2k He answered very directly and clearly. Ship owner who invested into baffles will be less competitive and probably go out of business. Controlling safety of cargo (on contractual side) is reasonably safe and makes way more business sense. Even for cargo owners because they like shipment charge to be as low as possible.
@@wilm8458 Not if every ship owner is required to conform to the same code. WTF is so difficult about this for you to understand? You cannot operate a single hull bulk crude carrier nowadays because you have no harbor capable of receiving it that you can load or discharge it in.
The answer is simple. Tankers has baffles to minimise the innertia but liquid can come back to each original state, bayxite if it gets liquified would get on one side and stay their even with the baffles on, it would list heavily, and with swell I would made more the list following by capsize, so no the answer isn’t baffles. The solution is to constantly check the dew point of the cargo hold and make an air circulation when needed. Also double check the liquid percentage before loading. Great vid chief, keep up the good work !
Social media never ceases to amaze me, those with no experience in seafaring, maritime engineering, design or investing have all the ideas like shipping was invented yesterday. Thanks Chief for your in depth explanation to those social media experts.
i dont think any of them claimed that this would be a silver bullet to all problems. they just came up with an idea, which did indeed work as the chief said. putting baffles is not a stupid idea, it works. just due to space limitations is it unpractical. you sound like one of those people who never actions an idea thinking "this would have been done already", truly the enemy of invention and technological progress
@@erentar2002 Well, now we know it was you who made that silly baffle suggestion. It'll be okay, just play the victim like a good beta. Quit wasting your time on TH-cam, and enroll in an adult literacy program; in a few years you'll be able to write on an adult level.
@@DowntownDeuce2 i was recommended this video yesterday and had no idea about the precursor, my first video on this channel. also nice attacks on my person, get better and attack my argument next time
@@erentar2002 Sure kid, let's pretend it wasn't you for a minute. That means you never read the correspondence and just blindly speculated that they didn't claim it was a perfect "silver bullet" or that they were just offering suggestions. You have no idea what the content of their correspondence is. You never saw the messages, so you're just a kid looking for attention and guessing at what it said. You never made a coherent "argument," so there is nothing for me to respond to. There's a reason that you had to resort to "liking" your own comment...
I love the way you explain things. You have such a non condescending manner when addressing comments like this. I had the thought of baffles in the previous video and then as your video went on I thought, well why not just have some dedicated ships to haul those cargos, and then you even answered that question. That's why your the Chief. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us non seafaring folks. I really enjoy your videos.
'Mandates baffles to stop free surface effect... stores them on deck raising the CG by a couple thousand tons' Hahaha don't give them ideas Chief! You have a great way of making complex topics simple and amazing videos that I can point friends/family to when they ask what I do. It's great to see your vids become so good over the past few years and it was some of your discussions and views that gave me an added kick a few years ago, took the dive and went back to college. Passed my MCA EOOW Orals last month! Edit: as said by the Chief his story was more of an example of a good Captain who was secure enough to stand against the company trying to kill his crew. Captain's like that are the ones you want to crew for.
In summary, it’s easier to make sure the cargo prone to liquefaction is within the standard moisture levels than it is to retrofit every entire bulk cargo ship in the world in case one port isn’t maintaining quality standards
Or the same point from another perspective; it would cost more in TCO to build a ship that can safety carry wet liquefaction risk cargoes than it would to just loose that cargo. Heck, if that's a non-trivial problem at some port, it may actually make more business sense to build and operate a commercial ore drying plant, rather than building special ships.
As every once in a while it goes wrong it's apparently not that easy (I can imagine they can take in some water under rough conditions too), or at least people may be tempted to seek out the limits to maximize profits. Both could be solved by installing bafffles. These baffles being there they can just as well use them and there's less incentive to cut corners. No solution is 100% so I've no objection against a plea that accepting the risk is the better option.
@@RoadDestination the people willing to cut corners are the ones least likely to spend the extra money. You could try to enforce something via international something, but those same people will just do their business with whoever doesn't agree to apply the restrictions. Really, what's the point? It sounds to me like it's already well known how to deal with this risk, so it's only a problem to people who decide to ignore that wisdom. As long as everyone involved knows enough to correctly understand the risks they are taking on, then I say let them make the decisions, reap the rewards and suffer the consequences.
@@benjaminshropshire2900 They did it with single-hulled oil tankers. The destinations made it illegal to operate single-hulled ships built after a certain date in their waters. The response was for MARPOL to make that a worldwide standard within a couple years. It's generally not the ship owners that "suffer the consequences" of unsafe operations. They have insurance too to protect them from the financial consequences of unethical behavior.
@@Markle2k If the the ship owners are lying to the crew or forcing them to work on the ship then I might agree with you. However if they can make an informed choice and are willing to take on a know risk to work on a more profitable ship? I don't see where it's your or my place to say they are wrong. (Every choice you make, *someone* thinks is dumb. If that a good enough reason to refuse you that choice, then you only have the right the people in power today think you should. The most basic right has to be the right to make bad choices.) And it's very possible the choice might even be between working on that ship the way it is, or there not being a ship to work on at all: drive up the cost of the ship and the number of cargos that can afford to use it goes down, and with it the number of crew the industry can find the revenue pay them from.
One thing I have noticed ... it is readily apparent why you are such a desired Instructor at PMMA! Your students are the ones who will influence the trade for decades to come. Well done Sir! Thank you, for them!
Thanks for this view into your career. We all choose different paths to make a living, and I enjoy seeing some of the more unique paths some people have committed to.
It just shows how often we make assumptions that are wrong because we lack facts. Facts are the cornerstone of any conversation and that's what you get here: facts. Thanks chief for doing this. I hope you enjoy doing these videos as much as I enjoy learning from them.
I think that making assumptions, then questioning them, is great for conversations. I mean, look at the conversation that Chief just had with us based on assumptions. Folks assumed that bulkheads is the solution and many asked why they aren't used. Imagine sitting around shooting manure with him and the topic came up. I'm sure as the conversation went on, folks would make additional assumptions and ask about them, which continues the conversation. My point that I left back there someplace is that assumptions are fine as long as you don't act on them or form opinions before asking about them.
Chief, you are very polite and very clear in your explanations. I still find very surprising that people will look at a ship in a video and instantly comment on how the ship should be built! That says a lot about how these people think and how presumptuous they are: if I look at a video where the content creator is a Chief on the ship my attitude is to listen and learn, not to superficially believe that a comment is going to change the ship design of so many already built and proven vessels!
I have lived on the great lakes all my life, and very much into the shipping on them. I find your videos very entertaining and informative. Most of the ships on the lakes are bulkers, many up to a thousand feet long, so understand the concept.
Another topic that would be interesting is the “marketing” of a bulk carrier. I mean after you unload at your destination port, ideally your next load would be from that same port, right? But what if they have nothing ready to ship out? Does the vessel operator try to sell your services (perhaps even at a discount?) to nearby ports?
Ideally, yes. But the world rarely operates ideally. Shipping contracts are made months in advance, if not more. The ship captain just follows shipment orders relayed by his superiors within the shipping company, who have calculated future routes, costs and profit margins.
@@djscottdog1 It all depends on the charter. My ships (P&O BSD) were mostly chartered to Associated Bulk Carriers or Texaco and we have had destination ports arranged, then changed mid ocean. Things can change pretty fast.
I’m sure it’s scheduled ahead of time but in occasions nothing is ready to load at the discharge port, they go to another port. I’ve seen in this channel where they crossed the pacific without cargo therefore doing maintenance on the cargo holds while it’s empty for a long period of time.
While ships sinking because of this problem is a horrible reality, my guess is this type of disaster is a very tiny number of trips. As Chief MAKOI stated in the previous video, the ship he was on refused to load a cargo that could have potentially had this problem.
Overtired crew crashing planes was a "small" number of incidents compared to successfully completed trips. The same for long-haul semi drivers. The pressure to "get the job done" is itself a safety risk. It encourages rationalizations. That ship that sunk probably wouldn't have sunk if the weather and sea state had cooperated. But it didn't.
@@Markle2k In 2020, a total of 18 cargo vessels were lost. According to a report from Allianz, this is consistent with the prior two years but down significantly from 2011-2017, which averaged 42.4 cargo vessels lost per year. This is out of 60,000 large cargo vessels worldwide, according to their report, so around 0.03% of all large cargo vessels were lost. They also report that converted VLOCs (Very Large Ore Carriers) are on their way out, with 43% of the fleet scrapped since 2017 in favor of newer, more reliable, and safer vessels. Cross-referencing the 18 vessels with Wikipedia, there were a few dozen dead and missing. This is unfortunate, but it's a reality of working in some of the most dangerous conditions on the planet, and yet the numbers have decreased over time. We don't see airline passengers fitted with parachutes or ejection seats. Instead, we see improvements in general safety such that fatal accidents are extremely rare. Even in countries where you probably shouldn't fly on the national airline, odds are extremely low that you won't make your destination. Worldwide, there were about 40 accidents of large commercial airliners in 2020, a rate of about 0.03% of the global fleet. While not all were hull losses, you can see the comparison in safety levels. Being on a cargo ship really isn't much different from being on an airliner.
Be interesting to see how cargo holds get cleaned when transitioning between liquid loads to solid loads. And to see how ship’s contents are unloaded. Thx always enjoy your videos. Extremely well done and informative. Cheers
Same question but not for liquid to solid. Rather from a toxicity perspective. How is cleaning performed when transitioning from ores like anthracite to foodstuffs like grain? Are there specialised procedures to ensure contamination does not occur? And how about scrap metals that may contain lead or mercury to foodstuffs?
I have been in the shipping business for many years and there are cleaning methods for vessels. In fact the USDA and stability representatives get onboard to check the vessel prior to loading.
@@captainotto anthracite would be about the last thing I would worry about. We make drinking water filters out of anthracite glitter used on a municipal scale, not to mention we make pizza in anthracite fired oven with the pizza right next to the burning anthracite. It's funny how the brain dead media has people so scared of anthracite like a bunch of morons
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into these videos Chief. You are a wise man, a great educator and I’m sure a leader that your crew looks up to. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Chief, there's a very simple reason why the naval architects never thought about baffles: Because they lack the concentrated knowledge that the internet comunity has about any topic. Don't we all know that people commenting under videos and articles know it all much better than the professionals working in an industry since decades? And why would we care about reality instead of just implementing brilliant ideas? No, seriously, it's nice that you're addressing such questions. Being an engineer, it's obvious why a baffle isn't fitted in place when loading a specific cargo. But not everyone has the same background, so it's great to get answers out ot the people who wonder and don't know.
am i the only one who thinks he's going to break out laughing any second... Damn... the happiness is contagious... if i WAS* on a sinking ship I'd want to be with this guy ...
As an agent for Bulk carriers, I can see this seeming like a simple solution, but as far as it goes, most companies want the most cargo with the least time in port, baffles would slow discharge and trimming operations down significantly! Speaking of course of non self-discharge vessels. I’m new to the industry so this is only a point of view and self interpretation!! Love your videos and I am happy to finally be in the maritime industry!!
So, you are suggesting that it is a calculated risk for them? Meaning they feel the chance of a loss of life due to the liquification of the cargo is minimal enough that they don't think the chance of loss of life is within an acceptable parameter? I am not trying to sound funny or anything, this is a serious question.
@@highjix from my point of view yes. Actually calculated risk is the perfect way to put it. The name of the business is to move as much cargo possible as efficiently as possible.
@@highjix Risk always has to be calculated these days. If you put the right mitigations in it could be as low as with baffles. Just like aircraft no longer require 4 engines to fly transatlantic. Personally I still prefer 4 engines, but I'm paranoid.
@@jamescaley9942 I don't think risk has anything to do with planes flying transatlantic, I believe that is innovation and plane engines becoming powerful enough and economic enough to fly longer distances, not risking it all on if it will make it or not, but with that said, I do understand most of what you where trying to say.
I am really enjoying your videos. I spent my career, over thirty years, as a cargo surveyor. I have worked with cargoes from bulk ore to liquified gases all around the world. I think that the strangest ships were the tiny liquid tanks on the Divi heavy lift ships, climbing through numerous bulkheads to get to the hatches.
The baffle idea is okay if it's just a question. People were positing it as a real solution, even to the point of wanting it mandated. The Chief shook his head and all derision was OFF CAMERA.
I worked at a mine in Iran Jaya many years ago and the port used waste oil from all the vehicles and generators to run an ore dryer. The process of extracting the metals was a floatation so there was plenty of moisture. The ore was piped about 70 miles from an elevation of 9500 feet to the port.
A friend was Chief Engineer on a fishing vessel. The fish leftovers would be squeezed to extract fish oil, which would be burned to dry everything and turn it into fish meal. Nothing went to waste. He said the entire thing smelled terrible and any repairs were not fun!
@@bigpjohnson I use fish meal fertilizer in our garden and greenhouse and it does smell once it gets moist. It is the best fertilizer I have used after trying all those fancy organic liquids I’ll stay with the fish meal.
Very well explained. There is no need to install baffles. Just follow safety standard. Which is to assay the cargo for percentage of moisture. Having a baffle is like trying to fix a safety violation with a safety device, when what is needed is to take precaution and avoid a dangerous condition.
Exactly. Suggesting a much more difficult and unworkable solution to an existing standards violation is, in my thinking, just stupid. Knee-jerk reactions are how people seem to solve their problems today anyways. I'm baffled.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Just thought of this better analogy. I think. If we have a truant on board, we don't accommodate him by adding protection. We don't allow him on board.
Some solutions tp problems create more problems.. bottom line in engineering/design is to keep it simple! thank you chief M ! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Very well explained. I think one of the issues with your viewers and ships cargo, is that the viewer does not understand the sheer size of these ships. I think most people watch your videos on some sort of a deal iPad android something like that. This video was very good in it it showed other types of bulk cargo.
Hi! I have discovered you in TH-cam and I really enjoyed this video, I'm sure I will be reviewing all the content you have. Thanks for share your marvelous world to people that are interested in this kind of work. Best wishes for you from Colombia!.
Thank you for posting this video Chief your intelligence personal standards offers a good balance between safe practice and earning a living for all concerned in the shipping industry .
Great channel, found it lastly. Good job Chief! And yes, as naval architect can confirm, in designing ships is all about money. Each vessel is customized, and optimized to maximum. It's not a massive production asset. Even if someone says there are sister vessels, they are never the same. Baffles would be for first too expensive to produce, too expensive to carry onboard (reducing the load capacity) and too expensive for maintenance. It's just cheaper and safer to have standards for carried cargo :) btw, max moisture content is also in buyers bussiness, to be low. He does not want to pay for transporting water.
As a guy who has driven (and still do) tanker trucks,and grain trucks, baffles can be handy to have,but they make unloading a complete bitch! Plus,you can't really baffle solid load tanks! You'd never get it unloaded or clean enough to not contaminate the next load. Key board marine architects are apparently a thing huh Chief? Good video clearly explained!
Yep. No baffles and all the ones I have seen are single compartment tanks also. Ive driven different tankers off and on for over 25 years and ive never driven one with full baffles. The closest is those big poly tanks with the indentations on the sides for the straps to hold them on the truck. I will know how to behave with a baffled tank!
Chief Makoi, Good day. You have just given us a terrific and very well researched, path breaking lecture on a remedial solution by way of introducing divisional baffle plates in cargo holds to break or reduce FSE in case of liquefaction of bulk cargoes, esp. ore concentrates. However I agree with you that at the end of the day it would not be a good practical solution due to various constraints that you have already given us.! One final question I also saw earlier your perfect analysis of the huge container ship Ever Given that ran aground in the Suez Canal and blocked the same for many days which I also liked. You're a Chief as in Chief Engineer or or Chief Officer.?? Your videos are really superb. Keep it up Sir.! 👍👌
Second-guessing engineers? As usual, it boils down to acceptable risk and desired profit margin. (You could wrap yourself in bubble wrap every time you get into your car too) Nice video, Chief. Your channel is always interesting. Thanks.
yo could just drive without seatbelt and ignore traffic roles too. looks like ships do away with seatbelts but have rules. which not always works though...
@@mechadrake Seatbelts are cheap and don't cause much inconvenience. Maybe a better analogy would be helmets. Drivers could reduce the risk of injury by wearing one but most don't see it worth it. One exception is motor sports where the risks are higher.
@@seneca983 i meant seatbelts as an everyday, clear to everyone, safety device. If we want to be analogous, so I would have wanted to wrinte mandatory crumple zone mechanics, for example. Which is not simple or cheap, but the cars are not sold without them here in EU countries. The rrason, for example, we do not have key cars from japan, as they do not have as much safety as normal cars, despite being slower lighter transportation.
@@mechadrake I still don't think that's a good analogy. The extra cost isn't prohibitive. Like Makoi said, baffles could make ships unloadable in many ports.
Your comment grossly underrates the expertise of armchair structural engineers. If a guy with no experience or working knowledge of an industry doesn't know the perfect solution to that industry's problems, then who does?
Thanks Chief. It seems that sometimes, the simplest solutions, can open another can of worms. Shipping has been going on for a couple thousand years. I have no doubt that at some point the designers of the ships had already considered baffling or not. The effectiveness vs the cost and weight. Your videos offer some real lessons, for the rest of us 'land lubbers.' I hope you can keep it going and maybe at some point, do a new series on something. You and your team aboard ship work hard and when they get the chance, like sailors since the beginning of time, play hard, enjoy life in the moment, and make a slight effort to stay out of trouble!
Keyboard warriors like to always claim everyone else is stupid to feel better about themselves. Asking about baffles doesn't in any way indicate that a person is stupid.
Thx Chief, great, logical & through explanation of why baffles are not practical for (certain thpes of) bulk cargo. Semi-liquid potential is not sufficient reason to justify the costs & related complications of intermittent use then on-board storage issues. Your industry has developed specifications for testing for moisture content. Captain & Chief are trained in these matters. So your video was great at explaining all these indepth problems & industry practices to insure safety when ships travel on all oceans in all types of weather & related forces acting on these ships. Another great video Chief! Carry on Sir!👍👍👍👍🧑🔧🙂☕
in a perfect world, safety would trump profit. We do not yet live in that world so it becomes mitigating risk and that is balance. Balance is pretty reasonable most of the time and usually allows for enough leeway to keep it safe. Thanks Chief for responding to what most of the viewers seemed to see as the potential solution.
Good points. It seems like more rigorous and detailed schedule management is the best option. That includes knowing exactly what the cargo's are, how high the risk for a given type of cargo, and which ships in their fleet with what capabilities are available.
I am a fan of naval design and I want to thank you for your intelligent and understandable explanations of the why of these things. On the longitudinal bulkheads; good sense there Sir, the problem of the shipper is interestingly different than the engineer designing a combat ship. In that position, it was found that with empty compartments it was better not to divide the area fore and aft. When center line compartments were installed if the outer plate was penetrated it was found that the ship would flood asymmetrically leading to a capsize. The designers who make ships depend on a huge history of why ships fail. It is not always clear on the first contact why this is.
Correct. Every solution creates a new problem when something fails. Some ponder that the Titanic would have stayed afloat and level longer without watertight bulkheads. They were designed for 1 set of conditions, but not for unforeseen conditions.
Nice explanation. I did hear that specialized ships used with dredging had holds that had 'de-watering' equipment. Since the silt/sand/mud from the dredge is of course saturated with water, these could somehow pump the water out of the hold while more silt/sand/mud was being loaded in. I'm sure it's not practical on most bulk carriers, but I found it interesting and at least somewhat related.
While I'm not familiar with the transport of dry cargoes, I have some experience in LNG shipping from an engineering/financial analysis perspective. In the case of LNG, baffles are generally not used (even though they would not impeded unloading like in dry cargoes) because ships normally transport a full load of LNG, and without voids the cargo won't move around. Small amounts of LNG (say
Risk analyasis is a very complex art, unfortuately if this is not carried out properly accident will happen. Lack of it sank the Titanic and many another good ship and crew. Your a good sailor Chief Makoi. I would trust you with a ship. I get sea sick looking at my rum and coke. Mind you Nelson used the lee side quite a bit.
I admit, watching your previous video and reading those comments, I was caught up in the "could this work" train of thought, not the "should this work" train of thought. I was convinced baffles would be a good idea. However, this video highlights that a far more simple solution would be to not accept cargo that is too close to liquefaction. Bulk solids have static friction keeping them roughly in place even in rough seas, where a liquid is... a liquid. I guess a follow-on question I would have then is this: how water-tight are the bunker doors? You sometimes travel through rough seas and heavy storms carrying this cargo, how do you mitigate any rain- or seawater entering the bays from the top? Is it a tolerance threshold or are they really well sealed? Thanks for another fascinating video, Chief!
Thankfully, someone repentfully has seen the light and in this case admits and rejects the fallacious crowd mentality thinking. You are forgiven, my son. Go and sin no more. The cargo hold nor the covers have seals against water. Since the covers overhang down past the hold lip, it affords sufficient protection against expected water intrusion. Water intrusion occurs when the deck water is of sufficient height past the cover while prolongingly remaining on deck.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus I was not on the baffles bandwagon, but I find the excuses utterly unconvincing. Human nature and human greed causes corners to get cut where there is not an immediate threat and sometimes where there is.
Great video 👍 I don’t know what’s more idiotic, the people whom suggest baffles 🤦🏻♂️ or the fact they don’t see why the suggestion is unworkable, but then again I guess most of those people have never done a real days work on the front end of production and have no clue what goes on in the real world
I cannot give enough likes to this comment or the TH-cam like counter would break. Alot of those people are not in the real world and get their real education from social media. They've seen a video and have another idea, where's my diploma?
Great explanation to the obvious question! I still feel like there might be a cheeky solution to the economic problem, depending on the type of separation of material one is concerned about. For example dirt can be effectively reinforced by cloths alone, which while themselves unable to bear any significant weight still enforce structure that the dirt around naturally build on. However this wouldn’t stop any liquid on top of the cargo, which would have the mass to break any such cloth, and viscosity to escape from the other side. However even if sufficient, such cloths would need to be installed before loading, loaded evenly from both sides, and either removed from or destroyed when unloading. And in the best case they would only permit a higher tolerance of moisture in the cargo, meaning this difference in production/preparation costs alone would need to fund the whole modification and operation. Some problems don’t need a right kind of tool to solve, but should be worked around or entirely avoided in the first place.
Would be interesting to hear your perspective on the Scot Carrier / Karin Hoej collision last month. I’m having difficulty imagining how a collision can go so badly that a ship can capsize another vessel and literally run across its keel, but apparently it did.
Makes me wonder if that cost should be pushed down to the customers wanting their stuff shipped. Want to get stuff to where it's going and not care about moisture levels? Put it into cargo containers first, then have those loaded onto the carrier. The containers themselves act as mini baffles. Don't want to do that? Well, best make sure your stuff is dry, then.
While that would work, it would be even more expensive than having baffles on a bulk carrier. This was in fact done in the REALLY old days, but it wasn't very practical.
I think with bulk carriers, customers aren't as time sensitive as container vessels. Generally there's a stockpile at either end, either at the port or the facility, and those facilities can increase or decrease frequency and speed of journeys to keep stock levels consistent.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
A masterful clinical dissection of a technical and business proposition by an experienced professional engineer.
Mineral process engineer here. We are always watching the moisture content of mineral concentrates (note, these aren't ores) to keep the moisture high enough to avoid dust explosions and low enough to not liquify. Gotta meet both criteria.
I know grains can create dust explosions but can mineral dusts?
@@ValCronin if its reactive with oxygen, yes. things you'd never think could burn act different when they are given a ton of surface area to react with the 20% atmospheric oxygen. coal dust is a well known example, despite coal being relatively hard to ignite in chunks , as a dust it readily explodes.
@@ValCronin Most metals are flammable if in a sufficiently fine dust. Remember that rusting is just very slow burning. Steel wool will burn, for example.
'Mineral' is a bit vaguer. If it's already an oxide (bauxite appears to be a mix of various oxides and a few hydroxides), it probably can't be burnt further with air. Other salts are probably also non-flammable I think.
@@ValCronin Yup, even a concrete plant can explode violently from the dust.
@@ValCronin coal is technically a mineral too :)
Excellent discussion. Another hazardous material is metal turnings. Instead of liquefaction, you have fire to worry about. Metal turnings are coated with oil and where the oil isn't they will rust. The oxidation process generates heat to a point the oil residue will ignite. The USCG checks vessels transporting these metal turnings. Each hold has temperatures taken at various places and must be at or below a temperature listed in a Code of Federal Regulation administered by the USCG. Fire at sea can ruin your day.
Chief Makoi, thank you for your very informative videos. May you have smooth seas and a following wind.
Enjoyed the clear explanation as to why baffled cargo bays are not used. I thank you for sharing you seafaring life and knowledge with us. Well done Chief MAKOi.
Yes, a really interesting discussion.
But he didn't explain it. He talked around the issue with circular reasoning. The solution to the "bulk carriers are not specialized ships" is to make a regulation that requires a specialized baffled ship to carry cargo subject to liquefaction. My guess is that, him being Chief, his Ship's Owner would not be happy with him using the R-word out loud, even on his personal channel. He says it would not be economical, but if the only way to ship bauxite is in a baffled ship, the playing field is leveled. The same was said about double-hulled oil tankers back in the day.
@@Markle2k Bauxite is fine to ship if the moisture content is kept low. Ship owners, Captains, and insurance companies push to load problem-free cargo and to stop loading if there are issues. Baffling would likely only prevent 1 shipment from going bad a year, out of many thousands of safe voyages.
@@Markle2k He answered very directly and clearly. Ship owner who invested into baffles will be less competitive and probably go out of business. Controlling safety of cargo (on contractual side) is reasonably safe and makes way more business sense. Even for cargo owners because they like shipment charge to be as low as possible.
@@wilm8458 Not if every ship owner is required to conform to the same code. WTF is so difficult about this for you to understand?
You cannot operate a single hull bulk crude carrier nowadays because you have no harbor capable of receiving it that you can load or discharge it in.
The answer is simple. Tankers has baffles to minimise the innertia but liquid can come back to each original state, bayxite if it gets liquified would get on one side and stay their even with the baffles on, it would list heavily, and with swell I would made more the list following by capsize, so no the answer isn’t baffles. The solution is to constantly check the dew point of the cargo hold and make an air circulation when needed. Also double check the liquid percentage before loading. Great vid chief, keep up the good work !
Social media never ceases to amaze me, those with no experience in seafaring, maritime engineering, design or investing have all the ideas like shipping was invented yesterday. Thanks Chief for your in depth explanation to those social media experts.
THE SAD PART IS THAT THEY WALK AMONG US. THE SCARY PART IS THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS, SERVE ON JURIES, AND REPRODUCE.
i dont think any of them claimed that this would be a silver bullet to all problems. they just came up with an idea, which did indeed work as the chief said. putting baffles is not a stupid idea, it works. just due to space limitations is it unpractical.
you sound like one of those people who never actions an idea thinking "this would have been done already", truly the enemy of invention and technological progress
@@erentar2002 Well, now we know it was you who made that silly baffle suggestion. It'll be okay, just play the victim like a good beta. Quit wasting your time on TH-cam, and enroll in an adult literacy program; in a few years you'll be able to write on an adult level.
@@DowntownDeuce2 i was recommended this video yesterday and had no idea about the precursor, my first video on this channel.
also nice attacks on my person, get better and attack my argument next time
@@erentar2002 Sure kid, let's pretend it wasn't you for a minute. That means you never read the correspondence and just blindly speculated that they didn't claim it was a perfect "silver bullet" or that they were just offering suggestions. You have no idea what the content of their correspondence is.
You never saw the messages, so you're just a kid looking for attention and guessing at what it said. You never made a coherent "argument," so there is nothing for me to respond to. There's a reason that you had to resort to "liking" your own comment...
You might be the only guy on TH-cam that actually explains any of this and throughly too! Keep good work and looking forward to the next video!👍
Thanks Chief, you have further proven that the internet is jammed full of arm chair experts. Thanks for the video.
I love the way you explain things. You have such a non condescending manner when addressing comments like this. I had the thought of baffles in the previous video and then as your video went on I thought, well why not just have some dedicated ships to haul those cargos, and then you even answered that question. That's why your the Chief. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us non seafaring folks. I really enjoy your videos.
I am an ex-USN Navy Chief Petty Officer and the motto in the U.S. Navy is: "Chiefs get it done."
The professor is in, snapping everyone back from virtual reality, to actual reality.
'Mandates baffles to stop free surface effect... stores them on deck raising the CG by a couple thousand tons' Hahaha don't give them ideas Chief! You have a great way of making complex topics simple and amazing videos that I can point friends/family to when they ask what I do. It's great to see your vids become so good over the past few years and it was some of your discussions and views that gave me an added kick a few years ago, took the dive and went back to college. Passed my MCA EOOW Orals last month!
Edit: as said by the Chief his story was more of an example of a good Captain who was secure enough to stand against the company trying to kill his crew. Captain's like that are the ones you want to crew for.
In summary, it’s easier to make sure the cargo prone to liquefaction is within the standard moisture levels than it is to retrofit every entire bulk cargo ship in the world in case one port isn’t maintaining quality standards
Or the same point from another perspective; it would cost more in TCO to build a ship that can safety carry wet liquefaction risk cargoes than it would to just loose that cargo.
Heck, if that's a non-trivial problem at some port, it may actually make more business sense to build and operate a commercial ore drying plant, rather than building special ships.
As every once in a while it goes wrong it's apparently not that easy (I can imagine they can take in some water under rough conditions too), or at least people may be tempted to seek out the limits to maximize profits. Both could be solved by installing bafffles. These baffles being there they can just as well use them and there's less incentive to cut corners. No solution is 100% so I've no objection against a plea that accepting the risk is the better option.
@@RoadDestination the people willing to cut corners are the ones least likely to spend the extra money. You could try to enforce something via international something, but those same people will just do their business with whoever doesn't agree to apply the restrictions. Really, what's the point? It sounds to me like it's already well known how to deal with this risk, so it's only a problem to people who decide to ignore that wisdom.
As long as everyone involved knows enough to correctly understand the risks they are taking on, then I say let them make the decisions, reap the rewards and suffer the consequences.
@@benjaminshropshire2900 They did it with single-hulled oil tankers. The destinations made it illegal to operate single-hulled ships built after a certain date in their waters. The response was for MARPOL to make that a worldwide standard within a couple years.
It's generally not the ship owners that "suffer the consequences" of unsafe operations. They have insurance too to protect them from the financial consequences of unethical behavior.
@@Markle2k If the the ship owners are lying to the crew or forcing them to work on the ship then I might agree with you. However if they can make an informed choice and are willing to take on a know risk to work on a more profitable ship? I don't see where it's your or my place to say they are wrong. (Every choice you make, *someone* thinks is dumb. If that a good enough reason to refuse you that choice, then you only have the right the people in power today think you should. The most basic right has to be the right to make bad choices.)
And it's very possible the choice might even be between working on that ship the way it is, or there not being a ship to work on at all: drive up the cost of the ship and the number of cargos that can afford to use it goes down, and with it the number of crew the industry can find the revenue pay them from.
One thing I have noticed ... it is readily apparent why you are such a desired Instructor at PMMA! Your students are the ones who will influence the trade for decades to come. Well done Sir! Thank you, for them!
Thanks for this view into your career. We all choose different paths to make a living, and I enjoy seeing some of the more unique paths some people have committed to.
It just shows how often we make assumptions that are wrong because we lack facts. Facts are the cornerstone of any conversation and that's what you get here: facts. Thanks chief for doing this. I hope you enjoy doing these videos as much as I enjoy learning from them.
I think that making assumptions, then questioning them, is great for conversations. I mean, look at the conversation that Chief just had with us based on assumptions. Folks assumed that bulkheads is the solution and many asked why they aren't used. Imagine sitting around shooting manure with him and the topic came up. I'm sure as the conversation went on, folks would make additional assumptions and ask about them, which continues the conversation.
My point that I left back there someplace is that assumptions are fine as long as you don't act on them or form opinions before asking about them.
Dunning-Kruger effect.
Chief, you are very polite and very clear in your explanations.
I still find very surprising that people will look at a ship in a video and instantly comment on how the ship should be built!
That says a lot about how these people think and how presumptuous they are: if I look at a video where the content creator is a Chief on the ship my attitude is to listen and learn, not to superficially believe that a comment is going to change the ship design of so many already built and proven vessels!
I have lived on the great lakes all my life, and very much into the shipping on them. I find your videos very entertaining and informative. Most of the ships on the lakes are bulkers, many up to a thousand feet long, so understand the concept.
I was doing a welding job at a place that had the liquefaction problem. It was like walking on a water bed. Much love to you Chief!🤙🏻🤙🏻
Did Rosie finally get braces?
Another topic that would be interesting is the “marketing” of a bulk carrier. I mean after you unload at your destination port, ideally your next load would be from that same port, right? But what if they have nothing ready to ship out? Does the vessel operator try to sell your services (perhaps even at a discount?) to nearby ports?
I wanna bet its all scheduled months in advance
@@djscottdog1 2 words - spot market!
Ideally, yes. But the world rarely operates ideally. Shipping contracts are made months in advance, if not more. The ship captain just follows shipment orders relayed by his superiors within the shipping company, who have calculated future routes, costs and profit margins.
@@djscottdog1 It all depends on the charter. My ships (P&O BSD) were mostly chartered to Associated Bulk Carriers or Texaco and we have had destination ports arranged, then changed mid ocean. Things can change pretty fast.
I’m sure it’s scheduled ahead of time but in occasions nothing is ready to load at the discharge port, they go to another port. I’ve seen in this channel where they crossed the pacific without cargo therefore doing maintenance on the cargo holds while it’s empty for a long period of time.
While ships sinking because of this problem is a horrible reality, my guess is this type of disaster is a very tiny number of trips. As Chief MAKOI stated in the previous video, the ship he was on refused to load a cargo that could have potentially had this problem.
I'd also wonder if this liquefaction happens on any other types of shipment.
Bt as he said in that video also, that can put a lot of pressure on the captain!
Shoulda, coulda, woulda!
Overtired crew crashing planes was a "small" number of incidents compared to successfully completed trips. The same for long-haul semi drivers. The pressure to "get the job done" is itself a safety risk. It encourages rationalizations. That ship that sunk probably wouldn't have sunk if the weather and sea state had cooperated. But it didn't.
@@Markle2k In 2020, a total of 18 cargo vessels were lost. According to a report from Allianz, this is consistent with the prior two years but down significantly from 2011-2017, which averaged 42.4 cargo vessels lost per year. This is out of 60,000 large cargo vessels worldwide, according to their report, so around 0.03% of all large cargo vessels were lost. They also report that converted VLOCs (Very Large Ore Carriers) are on their way out, with 43% of the fleet scrapped since 2017 in favor of newer, more reliable, and safer vessels. Cross-referencing the 18 vessels with Wikipedia, there were a few dozen dead and missing. This is unfortunate, but it's a reality of working in some of the most dangerous conditions on the planet, and yet the numbers have decreased over time.
We don't see airline passengers fitted with parachutes or ejection seats. Instead, we see improvements in general safety such that fatal accidents are extremely rare. Even in countries where you probably shouldn't fly on the national airline, odds are extremely low that you won't make your destination. Worldwide, there were about 40 accidents of large commercial airliners in 2020, a rate of about 0.03% of the global fleet. While not all were hull losses, you can see the comparison in safety levels. Being on a cargo ship really isn't much different from being on an airliner.
@@JarrodFrates great comment, thank you
Be interesting to see how cargo holds get cleaned when transitioning between liquid loads to solid loads. And to see how ship’s contents are unloaded. Thx always enjoy your videos. Extremely well done and informative. Cheers
Bulk carriers do not take liquid cargo unless the liquefaction does happen
Same question but not for liquid to solid. Rather from a toxicity perspective. How is cleaning performed when transitioning from ores like anthracite to foodstuffs like grain? Are there specialised procedures to ensure contamination does not occur?
And how about scrap metals that may contain lead or mercury to foodstuffs?
The Chief has a video on that... check his video list....
I have been in the shipping business for many years and there are cleaning methods for vessels. In fact the USDA and stability representatives get onboard to check the vessel prior to loading.
@@captainotto anthracite would be about the last thing I would worry about. We make drinking water filters out of anthracite glitter used on a municipal scale, not to mention we make pizza in anthracite fired oven with the pizza right next to the burning anthracite.
It's funny how the brain dead media has people so scared of anthracite like a bunch of morons
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into these videos Chief. You are a wise man, a great educator and I’m sure a leader that your crew looks up to. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Chief, there's a very simple reason why the naval architects never thought about baffles: Because they lack the concentrated knowledge that the internet comunity has about any topic. Don't we all know that people commenting under videos and articles know it all much better than the professionals working in an industry since decades? And why would we care about reality instead of just implementing brilliant ideas?
No, seriously, it's nice that you're addressing such questions. Being an engineer, it's obvious why a baffle isn't fitted in place when loading a specific cargo. But not everyone has the same background, so it's great to get answers out ot the people who wonder and don't know.
It’s what the children have been taught in school and TV. Adults don’t know anything, and it will be the children that will save the world!
Keyboards specialists are everywhere now...
I truly admire how WELL you explain the facts, .... CLEARLY & easy for the average view to comprehend ..... "Thanks" Chief !!!!!
Chief, here's another vote for a video about cargo changes and hold clean out and all that stuff. That seems like a huge job!
am i the only one who thinks he's going to break out laughing any second...
Damn... the happiness is contagious... if i WAS* on a sinking ship I'd want to be with this guy ...
As an agent for Bulk carriers, I can see this seeming like a simple solution, but as far as it goes, most companies want the most cargo with the least time in port, baffles would slow discharge and trimming operations down significantly! Speaking of course of non self-discharge vessels. I’m new to the industry so this is only a point of view and self interpretation!! Love your videos and I am happy to finally be in the maritime industry!!
So, you are suggesting that it is a calculated risk for them? Meaning they feel the chance of a loss of life due to the liquification of the cargo is minimal enough that they don't think the chance of loss of life is within an acceptable parameter?
I am not trying to sound funny or anything, this is a serious question.
@@highjix from my point of view yes. Actually calculated risk is the perfect way to put it. The name of the business is to move as much cargo possible as efficiently as possible.
@@highjix Risk always has to be calculated these days. If you put the right mitigations in it could be as low as with baffles. Just like aircraft no longer require 4 engines to fly transatlantic. Personally I still prefer 4 engines, but I'm paranoid.
@@jamescaley9942 I don't think risk has anything to do with planes flying transatlantic, I believe that is innovation and plane engines becoming powerful enough and economic enough to fly longer distances, not risking it all on if it will make it or not, but with that said, I do understand most of what you where trying to say.
the other big problem would be balancing. if i pick up a load of lead on one side, what the hell do i put on tye other side to balance it out?
I am really enjoying your videos. I spent my career, over thirty years, as a cargo surveyor. I have worked with cargoes from bulk ore to liquified gases all around the world. I think that the strangest ships were the tiny liquid tanks on the Divi heavy lift ships, climbing through numerous bulkheads to get to the hatches.
i love the way how chief makoi explaining about the problem without looking down on the ppl that came up with the baffles solution
The baffle idea is okay if it's just a question. People were positing it as a real solution, even to the point of wanting it mandated. The Chief shook his head and all derision was OFF CAMERA.
Chief, you have opened my mind and eyes to a whole new realm of shipping and ship operations I had never thought or known of. Thank you.
A good video.
It amazes me how many people think of a commercial bulk carrier like their family's minivan. 😂
I worked at a mine in Iran Jaya many years ago and the port used waste oil from all the vehicles and generators to run an ore dryer. The process of extracting the metals was a floatation so there was plenty of moisture. The ore was piped about 70 miles from an elevation of 9500 feet to the port.
A friend was Chief Engineer on a fishing vessel. The fish leftovers would be squeezed to extract fish oil, which would be burned to dry everything and turn it into fish meal. Nothing went to waste. He said the entire thing smelled terrible and any repairs were not fun!
@@bigpjohnson I use fish meal fertilizer in our garden and greenhouse and it does smell once it gets moist. It is the best fertilizer I have used after trying all those fancy organic liquids I’ll stay with the fish meal.
Very well explained. There is no need to install baffles. Just follow safety standard. Which is to assay the cargo for percentage of moisture.
Having a baffle is like trying to fix a safety violation with a safety device, when what is needed is to take precaution and avoid a dangerous condition.
Exactly. Suggesting a much more difficult and unworkable solution to an existing standards violation is, in my thinking, just stupid. Knee-jerk reactions are how people seem to solve their problems today anyways. I'm baffled.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Surely you're not baffled, as you're advocating against installing them.
... I'll see myself out.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Just thought of this better analogy. I think.
If we have a truant on board, we don't accommodate him by adding protection. We don't allow him on board.
@@ramonching7772 Depends on how "Hot" she is.
exactly
CHIEF MAKOI you are the MAN!!!
Another good one Chief.
Thanks.
Your videos are so informative! Please do one on what country’s laws have jurisdiction on a voyage.
TARAMAR
Some solutions tp problems create more problems.. bottom line in engineering/design is to keep it simple!
thank you chief M ! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
The bottom line may be keeping it simple but every other line is "keep it safe"
Very well explained. I think one of the issues with your viewers and ships cargo, is that the viewer does not understand the sheer size of these ships. I think most people watch your videos on some sort of a deal iPad android something like that. This video was very good in it it showed other types of bulk cargo.
Chief l like to watch to see you provide the correct answers. Thanks brother and stay safe out there.
Hi! I have discovered you in TH-cam and I really enjoyed this video, I'm sure I will be reviewing all the content you have.
Thanks for share your marvelous world to people that are interested in this kind of work.
Best wishes for you from Colombia!.
Hi Chief hope you and your family are all good and looking forward to the holidays thank you for another video
Thank you for posting this video Chief your intelligence personal standards offers a good balance between safe practice and earning a living for all concerned in the shipping industry .
Great channel, found it lastly. Good job Chief!
And yes, as naval architect can confirm, in designing ships is all about money. Each vessel is customized, and optimized to maximum. It's not a massive production asset. Even if someone says there are sister vessels, they are never the same. Baffles would be for first too expensive to produce, too expensive to carry onboard (reducing the load capacity) and too expensive for maintenance. It's just cheaper and safer to have standards for carried cargo :) btw, max moisture content is also in buyers bussiness, to be low. He does not want to pay for transporting water.
Excellent summery as ever Chief
Chief MAKOi, Thanks for this video, with a clear explanation. Your knowledge and clear and informative delivery are much appreciated.
You're so knowledgeable. I'd feel very safe working under your command sir.
As a guy who has driven (and still do) tanker trucks,and grain trucks, baffles can be handy to have,but they make unloading a complete bitch! Plus,you can't really baffle solid load tanks! You'd never get it unloaded or clean enough to not contaminate the next load.
Key board marine architects are apparently a thing huh Chief?
Good video clearly explained!
I've heard milk trucks are the worst, because they cant have baffling since that would make them impossible to clean and sterilize.
Yep. No baffles and all the ones I have seen are single compartment tanks also.
Ive driven different tankers off and on for over 25 years and ive never driven one with full baffles. The closest is those big poly tanks with the indentations on the sides for the straps to hold them on the truck.
I will know how to behave with a baffled tank!
Supposed to say wouldn't know how to behave!
Thank you Chief for taking the time to clarify this issue.
Thanks for your education of all of us non-sea faring people. My experience at sea has been on cruise ships.. Jerome Manhattan Ks USA.
Another great explanation!
You are a true gentleman.
Stay safe brother!
Chief Makoi, Good day. You have just given us a terrific and very well researched, path breaking lecture on a remedial solution by way of introducing divisional baffle plates in cargo holds to break or reduce FSE in case of liquefaction of bulk cargoes, esp. ore concentrates. However I agree with you that at the end of the day it would not be a good practical solution due to various constraints that you have already given us.! One final question I also saw earlier your perfect analysis of the huge container ship Ever Given that ran aground in the Suez Canal and blocked the same for many days which I also liked. You're a Chief as in Chief Engineer or or Chief Officer.?? Your videos are really superb. Keep it up Sir.! 👍👌
Engineer.
He didn't need to do any research for this one -- everything he said is completely obvious to anyone who knows about how ships and shipping work.
@@beeble2003 Everything seems easy only "after" it's said or discovered, but never "before".! 🤔
Good explanation chief!
As a tanker driver in fuel transportation that was a question I had as well.
Second-guessing engineers? As usual, it boils down to acceptable risk and desired profit margin. (You could wrap yourself in bubble wrap every time you get into your car too) Nice video, Chief. Your channel is always interesting. Thanks.
yo could just drive without seatbelt and ignore traffic roles too. looks like ships do away with seatbelts but have rules. which not always works though...
@@mechadrake Seatbelts are cheap and don't cause much inconvenience. Maybe a better analogy would be helmets. Drivers could reduce the risk of injury by wearing one but most don't see it worth it. One exception is motor sports where the risks are higher.
@@seneca983 i meant seatbelts as an everyday, clear to everyone, safety device. If we want to be analogous, so I would have wanted to wrinte mandatory crumple zone mechanics, for example. Which is not simple or cheap, but the cars are not sold without them here in EU countries. The rrason, for example, we do not have key cars from japan, as they do not have as much safety as normal cars, despite being slower lighter transportation.
@@mechadrake I still don't think that's a good analogy. The extra cost isn't prohibitive. Like Makoi said, baffles could make ships unloadable in many ports.
Your comment grossly underrates the expertise of armchair structural engineers. If a guy with no experience or working knowledge of an industry doesn't know the perfect solution to that industry's problems, then who does?
Thanks Chief. It seems that sometimes, the simplest solutions, can open another can of worms.
Shipping has been going on for a couple thousand years. I have no doubt that at some point the designers of the ships had already considered baffling or not. The effectiveness vs the cost and weight.
Your videos offer some real lessons, for the rest of us 'land lubbers.'
I hope you can keep it going and maybe at some point, do a new series on something.
You and your team aboard ship work hard and when they get the chance, like sailors since the beginning of time, play hard, enjoy life in the moment, and make a slight effort to stay out of trouble!
I love your explanations. I grew up on the Ohio river. Sand dredges is the closest thing to Liqiufied cargo I know.
Chief Makoi's hardest job: explaining to people why they're stupid without making them feel bad.
Not stupid but definitely not humble for the most part.
@@H0kram not humble but definitely the way the questions are phrased
Keyboard warriors like to always claim everyone else is stupid to feel better about themselves. Asking about baffles doesn't in any way indicate that a person is stupid.
@@TheEngineerJason
What he said
Can never ask a dumb question
Thx Chief, great, logical & through explanation of why baffles are not practical for (certain thpes of) bulk cargo. Semi-liquid potential is not sufficient reason to justify the costs & related complications of intermittent use then on-board storage issues. Your industry has developed specifications for testing for moisture content. Captain & Chief are trained in these matters. So your video was great at explaining all these indepth problems & industry practices to insure safety when ships travel on all oceans in all types of weather & related forces acting on these ships. Another great video Chief! Carry on Sir!👍👍👍👍🧑🔧🙂☕
Excellent vid Chief Makoi👍, wow seeing that ship going down so quickly is chilling.
in a perfect world, safety would trump profit. We do not yet live in that world so it becomes mitigating risk and that is balance. Balance is pretty reasonable most of the time and usually allows for enough leeway to keep it safe. Thanks Chief for responding to what most of the viewers seemed to see as the potential solution.
Good points. It seems like more rigorous and detailed schedule management is the best option. That includes knowing exactly what the cargo's are, how high the risk for a given type of cargo, and which ships in their fleet with what capabilities are available.
Very good presentation Chief Makoi. Design of a vessel must blend many requirements for it to be viable.
I am a fan of naval design and I want to thank you for your intelligent and understandable explanations of the why of these things.
On the longitudinal bulkheads; good sense there Sir, the problem of the shipper is interestingly different than the engineer designing a combat ship. In that position, it was found that with empty compartments it was better not to divide the area fore and aft. When center line compartments were installed if the outer plate was penetrated it was found that the ship would flood asymmetrically leading to a capsize. The designers who make ships depend on a huge history of why ships fail. It is not always clear on the first contact why this is.
Correct. Every solution creates a new problem when something fails.
Some ponder that the Titanic would have stayed afloat and level longer without watertight bulkheads. They were designed for 1 set of conditions, but not for unforeseen conditions.
glad this popped up in my feed tonight. i watched the previous video but forgot to push the little bell. subscribed and all notes now! :-)
The voice of reason ! That's why have sub'd this channel. Be safe and thank you for an amazing channel. :-)
That’s why you’re the Chief….. and we’re the viewers. :D
You nailed it again Chief. Thumbs up.
Thanks for the explanation Chief. You answered a lot questions. Thanks for taking the time to share this information.
This show just popped up on my list. Glad it did. Very interesting 🤔. That opening shot of the ship was dramatic & scary. Happy Holidays ☃️
Very well explained to answer the questions Chief. Keep up the good work with this channel
That second one was a bauxite load... Learned that from another one of your vids.
Thank you Chief for another excellent video. Wishing you , your family, and your crew a very Merry Christmas.
Thankyou for addressing the baffle concept.. I too was wondering if baffles would work..Merry Christmas Chief! God Bless...
2:39 that's so obvious, it was what I was thinking before you even said it. Why people don't get it, it " baffles " me.
Wonderfully presented chief!!! Once again u nailed it!!!! - regards, fellow mariner.....
Nice explanation. I did hear that specialized ships used with dredging had holds that had 'de-watering' equipment. Since the silt/sand/mud from the dredge is of course saturated with water, these could somehow pump the water out of the hold while more silt/sand/mud was being loaded in. I'm sure it's not practical on most bulk carriers, but I found it interesting and at least somewhat related.
That makes sense. Thank you Chief for another informative video!
Excellent content! You Sir are a highly competent officer.
I guess it's the fine balance between income and safety. Thanks for explaining! :)
Well said and explained giving I have never been on a ship. Thanks for the explaining the process.
Guy knows his stuff or business, for-sure .
While I'm not familiar with the transport of dry cargoes, I have some experience in LNG shipping from an engineering/financial analysis perspective.
In the case of LNG, baffles are generally not used (even though they would not impeded unloading like in dry cargoes) because ships normally transport a full load of LNG, and without voids the cargo won't move around. Small amounts of LNG (say
Fascinating stuff, Chief! Thanks.
i find the topic of your videos very interesting and educational though I'm working on a different field
Thank you Chief Makoi, very interesting and informative. Stay safe and healthy.
@Chief MAKOi, that's why you make the BIG bucks!
Thank you for another great video Sir!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! 👈🖐️
Risk analyasis is a very complex art, unfortuately if this is not carried out properly accident will happen. Lack of it sank the Titanic and many another good ship and crew. Your a good sailor Chief Makoi. I would trust you with a ship. I get sea sick looking at my rum and coke. Mind you Nelson used the lee side quite a bit.
Truly love this channel. Great work sir
I admit, watching your previous video and reading those comments, I was caught up in the "could this work" train of thought, not the "should this work" train of thought. I was convinced baffles would be a good idea. However, this video highlights that a far more simple solution would be to not accept cargo that is too close to liquefaction. Bulk solids have static friction keeping them roughly in place even in rough seas, where a liquid is... a liquid.
I guess a follow-on question I would have then is this: how water-tight are the bunker doors? You sometimes travel through rough seas and heavy storms carrying this cargo, how do you mitigate any rain- or seawater entering the bays from the top? Is it a tolerance threshold or are they really well sealed?
Thanks for another fascinating video, Chief!
Thankfully, someone repentfully has seen the light and in this case admits and rejects the fallacious crowd mentality thinking. You are forgiven, my son. Go and sin no more.
The cargo hold nor the covers have seals against water. Since the covers overhang down past the hold lip, it affords sufficient protection against expected water intrusion. Water intrusion occurs when the deck water is of sufficient height past the cover while prolongingly remaining on deck.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus I was not on the baffles bandwagon, but I find the excuses utterly unconvincing. Human nature and human greed causes corners to get cut where there is not an immediate threat and sometimes where there is.
Thanks for the insightful video Chief. Can you make a video on how bulk carriers are being used for carrying containers, as seen in news these days ?
your videos are really interesting and informative, looking forward to watching more of them
Great video 👍
I don’t know what’s more idiotic, the people whom suggest baffles 🤦🏻♂️ or the fact they don’t see why the suggestion is unworkable, but then again I guess most of those people have never done a real days work on the front end of production and have no clue what goes on in the real world
I cannot give enough likes to this comment or the TH-cam like counter would break.
Alot of those people are not in the real world and get their real education from social media. They've seen a video and have another idea, where's my diploma?
Great explanation to the obvious question! I still feel like there might be a cheeky solution to the economic problem, depending on the type of separation of material one is concerned about. For example dirt can be effectively reinforced by cloths alone, which while themselves unable to bear any significant weight still enforce structure that the dirt around naturally build on. However this wouldn’t stop any liquid on top of the cargo, which would have the mass to break any such cloth, and viscosity to escape from the other side.
However even if sufficient, such cloths would need to be installed before loading, loaded evenly from both sides, and either removed from or destroyed when unloading. And in the best case they would only permit a higher tolerance of moisture in the cargo, meaning this difference in production/preparation costs alone would need to fund the whole modification and operation.
Some problems don’t need a right kind of tool to solve, but should be worked around or entirely avoided in the first place.
Glad you do this explanation. Thanks for the hours and hours of excellent information and education. Very interesting.
You are a very interesting person to listen to, love your videos. 👍
I was one of those suggesting them. Thanks for the clarification.
Would be interesting to hear your perspective on the Scot Carrier / Karin Hoej collision last month. I’m having difficulty imagining how a collision can go so badly that a ship can capsize another vessel and literally run across its keel, but apparently it did.
Makes me wonder if that cost should be pushed down to the customers wanting their stuff shipped. Want to get stuff to where it's going and not care about moisture levels? Put it into cargo containers first, then have those loaded onto the carrier. The containers themselves act as mini baffles.
Don't want to do that? Well, best make sure your stuff is dry, then.
While that would work, it would be even more expensive than having baffles on a bulk carrier. This was in fact done in the REALLY old days, but it wasn't very practical.
I think with bulk carriers, customers aren't as time sensitive as container vessels. Generally there's a stockpile at either end, either at the port or the facility, and those facilities can increase or decrease frequency and speed of journeys to keep stock levels consistent.
Such a pricefull knowledge...
Salute sir
Very interesting as all of your videos are Chief. Maligayang Pasko from your American neighbor just north of you up here in Iba !
Chief, Your videos are informative and entertaining . Thanks, DW