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 :)

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.

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.

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 KZfaq, 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 am an ex-USN Navy Chief Petty Officer and the motto in the U.S. Navy is: "Chiefs get it done."

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

Did Rosie finally get braces?

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

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 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.

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?

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

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.

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

TARAMAR

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.

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.

The bottom line may be keeping it simple but every other line is "keep it safe"

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".! 🤔

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?

I cannot give enough likes to this comment or the KZfaq 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?

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.

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!

I'm a damn EXPERT...I watched a KZfaq video that I didn't really understand! Step out of my way. 😠 🤪🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤪 (This is meant towards "other" commenters, not Ronald)

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Sorry space cadet. I believe your name says it all.

@@beekeeper7535 I'm referring to "other" commenters. My bad. Your post gets more thumbs up till the KZfaq like counter breaks. People sometimes give a response like you did. My response sometimes is "As for my name.....yep, that's me...Space Cadet. How can I further help you?" 😀

Because it takes hours or days to load, a single squall line can come along and invalidate your tests. Your solution also does not take into account human failings like greed or the pressure to skimp on safety because they had gotten away with it before.

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.