apparia@discuss.tchncs.de
on 14 Apr 14:25
nextcollapse
Everyone is reporting on these ships making it through the strait which is still under Iranian control. Few seem to mention the part in the Gulf of Oman where the US is actually implementing its blockade. The poster child, Rich Starry, mentioned in the article, did this a few hours after clearing the strait, still far from the Arabian Sea:
That sure doesn’t look like a ship breaching a blockade without incident.
It’s too early to say how this will play out on a larger scale but for these specific ships a lot of reporting is really fucking misleading at the moment.
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
on 14 Apr 14:52
collapse
So you think a ship that was moving at maybe 5 knots/hr instantly turned around and in less than 30 minutes accelerated past 50 knots/hr?
SaltSong@startrek.website
on 14 Apr 15:17
nextcollapse
The fact that you are measuring speed in knots per hour invalidates your point.
Please use a correct measurement, and try again.
SolidShake@lemmy.world
on 14 Apr 15:36
nextcollapse
…that…that is the correct measurement
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
on 14 Apr 15:46
nextcollapse
I think per hour is already a part of the definition of knot (hence 50 knots not per hour). I think they are just being pedantic.
SaltSong@startrek.website
on 14 Apr 18:20
collapse
I’m being accurate. “Knots” is “nautical miles per hour,” as you correctly described.
If we are being really pedantic. Knots is a measure of distance, and the fact that people have been using that wrong for several centuries does not turn a rope tied at one point into a time-changing object.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
on 14 Apr 19:20
nextcollapse
I believe the current terminology is nautical mile (distance) and knot (speed).
daychilde@lemmy.world
on 14 Apr 22:11
nextcollapse
fact that people have been using that
The way language works is that people use things and they become correct.
There’s things I hate, too, like “yea” now being a spelling for “yeah”. But it’s useless to fight it.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Apr 22:57
nextcollapse
No, it isn’t. A nautical mile is a measurement of distance, a knot is a nautical mile per hour.
SaltSong@startrek.website
on 15 Apr 02:09
collapse
Knots is a measure of distance, and the fact that people have been using that wrong for several centuries
We’ve only been sailing for “several centuries.” How long was it a measure of distance before people started using it wrong?
All you’re doing is being a grammar nazi to someone who at most said the equivalent of “$30 million dollars”, which is technically, thanks to the dollar sign, “thirty million dollars dollars”.
You knew what they meant. I knew what they meant. Everyone knew what they meant. There was absolutely zero ambiguity, so you just come off looking like a prick.
SaltSong@startrek.website
on 15 Apr 02:02
collapse
SaltSong@startrek.website
on 15 Apr 14:46
collapse
Possibly not.
But “We know what he meant” when someone demonstrates that they don’t know what they are talking about has proven to be dangerous.
I wouldn’t hire a mechanic who thought cats traveled at miles per MPH. Why should I listen to someone talk about boats who thinks “knots per hour” is a speed?
Oh I agree jerk can get out of hand really quickly. But the real fun comes when we get into snap crackle and pop.
For anyone who is unaware, I leave this here for your viewing pleasure.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Apr 22:58
collapse
A knot is a nautical mile per hour, I’m not sure how you’ve reached the conclusion that’s not distance over time.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
on 14 Apr 19:11
collapse
So you think a ship that was moving at maybe 5 knots instantly turned around and in less than 30 minutes accelerated past 50 knots?
SaltSong@startrek.website
on 14 Apr 19:40
collapse
I find that reasonably unlikely, unless it is a naval ship. I don’t think cargo ships go that fast unless empty, and highly motivated. Possibly not even then.
Do we have a reliable source for this data?
apparia@discuss.tchncs.de
on 14 Apr 22:13
nextcollapse
My source is marinetraffic.com. Other AIS trackers also corroborate it.
From the sounds of it the OP and most other articles are based on similar armchair research looking at trackers so I think it’s about as reliable as we’re going to get.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Apr 22:51
collapse
Most naval vessels can do just over 30, if that. Cargo vessels spend most of their life below 10.
50 knots means there’s some fuckery afoot.
apparia@discuss.tchncs.de
on 14 Apr 22:58
nextcollapse
Sure, but the gif doesn’t show 50 knots. The gif doesn’t show any speed actually, so I really don’t know where the 50 number comes from. But on the tracker the speed was 8.1 knots. Fast for a tanker, but totally believable.
SaltSong@startrek.website
on 15 Apr 02:07
collapse
I was under the impression that navy ships could go much faster, but didn’t because of wear and fuel consumption. I recall hearing about 60 knots, but I wouldn’t place even a small bet on it.
Same for cargo ships, to a lesser extent. If an empty one felt a need to move, I’m sure they could get a little speed to them. But they aren’t built for it, and “saving money on fuel” is their prime directive.
Although, as someone noted elsewhere, there don’t seem to be any actual measurements of speed. They turned around, and cranked the throttle, but we don’t know how far they were going in either phase.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
on 15 Apr 02:14
collapse
I’ve read claims that some nuclear aircraft carriers can go a lot faster than 30, but I suspect that’s bullshit.
There’s also a phenomenon known as hull speed, where a displacement hull vessel takes an exponential amount of power to go slightly faster once you hit it. They’re also not going to have an engine that’s massively more powerful than they need, just in case.
50 knots would outrun pretty much any large vessel on the planet.
apparia@discuss.tchncs.de
on 14 Apr 21:59
collapse
I don’t know where you’re getting any of that from. It was travelling at 8 knots before and after the turnaround. The bit in the animation where it slows and drifts almost due south is actually marinetraffic not having AIS data for that period so it just interpolates between the two known positions. Maybe I should have made that clearer.
That turnaround period is also close to 3.5 (edit: 2.5) hours, not 30 minutes.
According to the same data the ship is now close to the Strait of Hormuz that it passed through yesterday; it seems pretty clear it did not get where it wanted to go.
apparia@discuss.tchncs.de
on 14 Apr 22:45
collapse
The gif shows no data (dimmed icon) from 08:49 UTC to 11:10 UTC so I had my maths wrong and it’s 2 hours 21 minutes, apologies. Still a lot more than 30 minutes. The AIS data also generally comes in less frequently than every minute so there’s some unreliability there.
As I said, according to the current data the ship definitely kept going back up towards the Strait since I posted, so what’s more likely, it kept going on its current course and spoofed its AIS for nearly 12 hours, or that it turned around?
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
on 14 Apr 14:30
nextcollapse
Look what Iran can do that Trump can’t! Actually, so far everything is Iran doing things Trump can’t, like win a war or stop a boat.
threaded - newest
This is beyond funny, tbh.
TACO Tuesday
🤡
Everyone is reporting on these ships making it through the strait which is still under Iranian control. Few seem to mention the part in the Gulf of Oman where the US is actually implementing its blockade. The poster child, Rich Starry, mentioned in the article, did this a few hours after clearing the strait, still far from the Arabian Sea:
<img alt="Marine tracker timelapse showing RICH STARRY travelling southeast out of the Strait of Hormuz, halting and showing stale data for around 3.5 hours, and then returning back the way it came at speed." src="https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/a6626347-dbed-4a71-854b-d863b4d74433.gif">
That sure doesn’t look like a ship breaching a blockade without incident.
It’s too early to say how this will play out on a larger scale but for these specific ships a lot of reporting is really fucking misleading at the moment.
So you think a ship that was moving at maybe 5 knots/hr instantly turned around and in less than 30 minutes accelerated past 50 knots/hr?
The fact that you are measuring speed in knots per hour invalidates your point.
Please use a correct measurement, and try again.
…that…that is the correct measurement
I think per hour is already a part of the definition of knot (hence 50 knots not per hour). I think they are just being pedantic.
I’m being accurate. “Knots” is “nautical miles per hour,” as you correctly described.
If we are being really pedantic. Knots is a measure of distance, and the fact that people have been using that wrong for several centuries does not turn a rope tied at one point into a time-changing object.
I believe the current terminology is nautical mile (distance) and knot (speed).
The way language works is that people use things and they become correct.
There’s things I hate, too, like “yea” now being a spelling for “yeah”. But it’s useless to fight it.
No, it isn’t. A nautical mile is a measurement of distance, a knot is a nautical mile per hour.
We’ve only been sailing for “several centuries.” How long was it a measure of distance before people started using it wrong?
People have been using knots for a few millennia.
All you’re doing is being a grammar nazi to someone who at most said the equivalent of “$30 million dollars”, which is technically, thanks to the dollar sign, “thirty million dollars dollars”.
You knew what they meant. I knew what they meant. Everyone knew what they meant. There was absolutely zero ambiguity, so you just come off looking like a prick.
I know what I’m about.
Being a prick is not a reason to be proud.
Possibly not.
But “We know what he meant” when someone demonstrates that they don’t know what they are talking about has proven to be dangerous.
I wouldn’t hire a mechanic who thought cats traveled at miles per MPH. Why should I listen to someone talk about boats who thinks “knots per hour” is a speed?
You don’t have to listen to them, just like you don’t have to be a prick about it.
I think there point is that knots is not a measurement of distance over time so you can’t technically travel in knots per hour.
Ostensibly knots per hour would be acceleration, which makes little sense in context
And knots per hour per hour would be a measure of ever-increasing acceleration, so this is getting out of hand quickly now :)
Oh I agree jerk can get out of hand really quickly. But the real fun comes when we get into snap crackle and pop.
For anyone who is unaware, I leave this here for your viewing pleasure.
A knot is a nautical mile per hour, I’m not sure how you’ve reached the conclusion that’s not distance over time.
So you think a ship that was moving at maybe 5 knots instantly turned around and in less than 30 minutes accelerated past 50 knots?
I find that reasonably unlikely, unless it is a naval ship. I don’t think cargo ships go that fast unless empty, and highly motivated. Possibly not even then.
Do we have a reliable source for this data?
My source is marinetraffic.com. Other AIS trackers also corroborate it.
From the sounds of it the OP and most other articles are based on similar armchair research looking at trackers so I think it’s about as reliable as we’re going to get.
Most naval vessels can do just over 30, if that. Cargo vessels spend most of their life below 10.
50 knots means there’s some fuckery afoot.
Sure, but the gif doesn’t show 50 knots. The gif doesn’t show any speed actually, so I really don’t know where the 50 number comes from. But on the tracker the speed was 8.1 knots. Fast for a tanker, but totally believable.
I was under the impression that navy ships could go much faster, but didn’t because of wear and fuel consumption. I recall hearing about 60 knots, but I wouldn’t place even a small bet on it.
Same for cargo ships, to a lesser extent. If an empty one felt a need to move, I’m sure they could get a little speed to them. But they aren’t built for it, and “saving money on fuel” is their prime directive.
Although, as someone noted elsewhere, there don’t seem to be any actual measurements of speed. They turned around, and cranked the throttle, but we don’t know how far they were going in either phase.
I’ve read claims that some nuclear aircraft carriers can go a lot faster than 30, but I suspect that’s bullshit.
There’s also a phenomenon known as hull speed, where a displacement hull vessel takes an exponential amount of power to go slightly faster once you hit it. They’re also not going to have an engine that’s massively more powerful than they need, just in case.
50 knots would outrun pretty much any large vessel on the planet.
I don’t know where you’re getting any of that from. It was travelling at 8 knots before and after the turnaround. The bit in the animation where it slows and drifts almost due south is actually marinetraffic not having AIS data for that period so it just interpolates between the two known positions. Maybe I should have made that clearer.
That turnaround period is also close to
3.5(edit: 2.5) hours, not 30 minutes.According to the same data the ship is now close to the Strait of Hormuz that it passed through yesterday; it seems pretty clear it did not get where it wanted to go.
The gif shows no data (dimmed icon) from 08:49 UTC to 11:10 UTC so I had my maths wrong and it’s 2 hours 21 minutes, apologies. Still a lot more than 30 minutes. The AIS data also generally comes in less frequently than every minute so there’s some unreliability there.
As I said, according to the current data the ship definitely kept going back up towards the Strait since I posted, so what’s more likely, it kept going on its current course and spoofed its AIS for nearly 12 hours, or that it turned around?
Look what Iran can do that Trump can’t! Actually, so far everything is Iran doing things Trump can’t, like win a war or stop a boat.
Alas, Iran treats their citizens like shit, so about the same give or take on some fronts. heh
Someone earlier said there are no winners in this war, and I’m really inclined to agree.
At leaat they didn’t launch missiles at any middleschools in US.
How does anyone even believe anything that comes out of Trumps mouth anymore?
I wonder if it’s one of those cases of military refusing to follow illegal orders.
Man, that would be nice.
“Stop. Don’t. Come back.”
It turned around.