Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 256002 times)

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #180 on: November 11, 2012, 01:18:50 PM »

I'm very concerned that the TIGHAR standards are either not being applied equally or at all. To declare the Electra as "found", even as stated after as opinion, is a slip. 

I don't believe I ever said the Electra was "found". What I said to Ric was "Congratulations on finding the final landing site of Amelia Earhart's round-the-world flight attempt." And everything I have identified in terms of components have been described as things that I see or things that appear to be.... But if I have slipped, I apologize.

(BTW, please don't mention that purple mermaid...)
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 02:21:42 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #181 on: November 11, 2012, 01:45:30 PM »

Semantics Tim. Saying he found the "final landing site" of he Electra means it landed there and never left. So, while it wasn't directly saying the Electra was found it sure said it landed there which also has not been proved. I agree that you did not say the Electra was found.

No one objects to personal opinion. Heaven knows I stick a lot of mine on this site but we have to be careful with how we say things here. When I read your post and Ric's reply I thought I had missed a huge news announcement.  I'm just as guilty in my earlier days until I caught onto the TIGHAR research philosophy.

For the record... I can't see any of he items pointed out in the videos and stills shown by Richie, Jeff Hayden or yourself. Maybe not a vivid enough memory. But let's keep looking.



Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #182 on: November 11, 2012, 02:03:35 PM »

I am having a hard time with Tim claiming Jeff missed an entire plane in 2010.

Misquote I think, Tom.

I have no idea whether Jeff Glickman ever saw any part of the 2010 High Definition video, let alone whether he found anything, until the "2" on the wing was called to his attention. Reasonable people can differ on the "2" - it is hard to see and is fleeting. The interesting thing about the "2" and also the first frame containing what I think is the cockpit is that they both occur in the 33 second segment that is at the beginning of the 2 minute exerpt. The light is poor and there is much jerky movement by the ROV. One's attention becomes more focused on the latter part of the video - much brighter with smoother ROV maeuvering, and many seconds where the ROV is stationary, observing the rope.  Don't ask me why this bright part was put at the end, rather than at the beginning, where it belonged in sequence of time.

The 8.5 minute portion recently released shows, by comparison, alot more of what looks to me like airplane parts. Including the frame around 13:41:53 where I have concentrated my efforts on what appears to be the cockpit. Whether Jeff Glickman has ever viewed these six extra minutes (before this week) is also not known to me. How could Jeff Glickman see airplane parts in video that he has never looked at?
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 02:07:58 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #183 on: November 11, 2012, 02:20:41 PM »

This ROV video clip shows the underwater structure which supports a North Sea oil/gas platform (and a seal).
Notice the 'bracelets' draped around the steel structures and pipes. These are sacrificial Aluminium anodes, they protect the steel from corrosion.
Notice how well they are doing the job, they look pretty well corroded in comparison to the steel.

http://youtu.be/ngP0RIh2EDM

These link to a company that makes such anodes, Houston I believe?...

http://www.galvotec.com/aluminum-anodes.htm
http://www.galvotec.com/
http://www.galvotec.com/pdf/Cat_Aluminum_KT.pdf
Galvanic corrosion has been a well known phenomenon and problem for ships for at least a century. This is why you find "sacrificial zincs" attached to propeller struts on the bottom of ships to prevent corrosion damage to the prop shaft. What you posted pertained to using aluminum instead of the more commonly used zinc for this purpose. Galvanic corrosion is caused by electrical currents set up in two different metals, IN ELECTRICAL CONTACT, that are immersed in seawater.  In this case the less "noble" metal will corrode away thus protecting the more "noble" metal. The most noble material is graphite and the least noble is magnesium. Zinc is next to magnesium and aluminum is only a little bit more "noble" than zinc. All three of these metals are less noble than steel so any of them could be used as a "sacrificial anode" to protect a steel structure. Since zinc is less noble than aluminum it is a more efficient anode than aluminum but for large underwater structures, the drill platform, cost becomes the major factor. However, for these to work, they must be attached, with a good electrical bond, to the metal to be protected. Then the sacrificial anode corrodes away at a rate that is the sum of its own corrosion rate and the rate of the protected steel. 

My point is, you appear to think that the different amounts of corrosion shown in the video illustrated how fast aluminum corrodes compared to steel if each is immersed in seawater and this is NOT what is shown in the video, The video shows that aluminum acts as an effective sacrificial anode and corrodes rapidly IF it is in contact with a large steel structure. We see that the steel structure of the Norwich City has not corroded rapidly even without sacrificial anodes. Since the Electra, if it is in the ocean, is not in contact with a large steel structure so it would NOT corrode at the rate depicted in the video so the video provides no support for the idea that the Electra has not been clearly seen due to a high rate of aluminum corrosion in seawater. (Or, maybe, the reason that the NC has not corroded is that the Electra ended up on top of the NC wreckage, in electrical contact, and acted as a sacrificial anode, hmmmmmm.)

gl

« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 02:31:50 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #184 on: November 11, 2012, 02:23:33 PM »


If one had been looking at aircraft instrument panels for over 11,000 hours, as I have, it might be easier to recognize these patterns.

I think the best course for all of us is to keep open minds.
Tim, I also have spent many thousands of hours staring at airplane instrument panels and I can't see any of the things you have identified in the photos.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #185 on: November 11, 2012, 02:28:18 PM »


Bill -

(1) I have not researched Gary's theory, but it is evident to me that Amelia Earhart did get to Gardner Island, because her airplane lies 800 feet underwater just off the reef, as (I repeat) pictures of the aircraft's cockpit prove.

Tim, here is a link to my website where you can see what I have written and also read for yourself the flight navigation manuals of the era  that support my opinions.

gl


Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #186 on: November 11, 2012, 02:37:58 PM »

"The video shows that aluminum acts as an effective sacrificial anode and corrodes rapidly IF it is in contact with a large steel structure"

I think you have mis understood the point of the post Gary. I compared steel corrosion with aluminium corrosion, that's all. I didn't say that the Norwich city steel was in contact with the debris field...


Galvanic corrosion may occur where there is both metallic contact and an electrolytic bridge between different metals. The least noble metal in the combination becomes the anode and corrodes. The most noble of the metals becomes the cathode and is protected against corrosion. In most combinations with other metals, aluminium is the least noble metal. Thus, aluminium presents a greater risk of galvanic corrosion than most other structural materials.

Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #187 on: November 11, 2012, 02:43:53 PM »

My point is, you appear to think that the different amounts of corrosion shown in the video illustrated how fast aluminum corrodes compared to steel if each is immersed in seawater and this is NOT what is shown in the video

Yes.  My only problem with Gary's post is that he got it in before I could make the same points.  One reason the early aluminum ships had problems is that they were still accustomed to using a lot of brass items on shipboard, and copper/brass and aluminum make just a dandy galvanic battery when in direct contact (with unfortunate consequences for the aluminum).  Aluminum by itself, regardless of alloy, has considerable corrosion resistance due to the formation of a tough layer of aluminum oxide.  It's interesting to read about the design of the 1952 SS United States, one of the more dramatic examples of use of aluminum superstructure, and the impressively extensive measures they took to avoid dissimilar metal contact.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #188 on: November 11, 2012, 02:50:47 PM »

Is it fair to ask Jeff Glickman to create a photoshop image of the Bevington Object taken from the air as Lambrecht might have seen it.  Jeff has the measurements that would be needed to get the position right. He could insert various sight angles and tidal conditions to validate whether Lambrecht could see the object on that day and time. Creating such an image would require the helicopter video and any stills taken since then, up to and including TIGHAR expedition photos. Kite? Presumably Jeff has copies of all those. His work on triangulating the Bevington Object reef location was impressive.

It's been stated many times in this forum that tidal conditions would have prevented Lambrecht, and five other sets of eyes, from seeing either the Electra (likely had gone over reef edge) or the Bevington object.  Simulation may be able to shed some light on it.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #189 on: November 11, 2012, 02:58:02 PM »


Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
Yep, but not much, so the large aluminum anode (the whole airplane) would not corrode at a rate significantly different than if there were no other metals in the plane at all. And, if the plane is busted up into itty-bitty pieces, then each piece consists only of aluminum, so no galvanic corrosion.

gl
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #190 on: November 11, 2012, 02:59:46 PM »

Is it fair to ask Jeff Glickman to create a photoshop image of the Bevington Object taken from the air as Lambrecht might have seen it.  Jeff has the measurements that would be needed to get the position right. He could insert various sight angles and tidal conditions to validate whether Lambrecht could see the object on that day and time. Creating such an image would require the helicopter video and any stills taken since then, up to and including TIGHAR expedition photos. Kite? Presumably Jeff has copies of all those. His work on triangulating the Bevington Object reef location was impressive.

It's been stated many times in this forum that tidal conditions would have prevented Lambrecht, and five other sets of eyes, from seeing either the Electra (likely had gone over reef edge) or the Bevington object.  Simulation may be able to shed some light on it.

Good thinking Irv :)
This must be the place
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #191 on: November 11, 2012, 03:01:49 PM »

"The video shows that aluminum acts as an effective sacrificial anode and corrodes rapidly IF it is in contact with a large steel structure"

I think you have mis understood the point of the post Gary. I compared steel corrosion with aluminium corrosion, that's all. I didn't say that the Norwich city steel was in contact with the debris field...


I know that, that was just humor at the end of my response. But, if the Norwich City was not in contact with the airplane's aluminum structure, then there would be no galvanic corrosion based on the rate of the massive amount of steel, just the normal slow rate of corrosion of aluminum alone in the sea.

gl
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #192 on: November 11, 2012, 03:05:14 PM »


Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
Yep, but not much, so the large aluminum anode (the whole airplane) would not corrode at a rate significantly different than if there were no other metals in the plane at all. And, if the plane is busted up into itty-bitty pieces, then each piece consists only of aluminum, so no galvanic corrosion.

gl

Not really, 1930's to 1970's aircraft were full of steel cables, copper wiring, steel, brass etc... that went everywhere, cockpit, fuselage, wings, engines, tail, flaps and so on. The plane may well be in itty-bitty pieces, now, but once it was whole. The timescale of its de-construction has yet to be confirmed.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #193 on: November 11, 2012, 03:24:48 PM »


Most aircraft contain more types of metals than merely aluminium.
Yep, but not much, so the large aluminum anode (the whole airplane) would not corrode at a rate significantly different than if there were no other metals in the plane at all. And, if the plane is busted up into itty-bitty pieces, then each piece consists only of aluminum, so no galvanic corrosion.

gl
Not really, 1930's to 1970's aircraft were full of steel cables, copper wiring, steel, brass etc... that went everywhere, cockpit, fuselage, wings, engines, tail, flaps and so on. The plane may well be in itty-bitty pieces, now, but once it was whole. The timescale of its de-construction has yet to be confirmed.

O.K., going with your idea, the aluminum structure corroded away more rapidly since it experienced its own rate of corrosion and also the rate of corrosion of all that other stuff made out of more noble metals in contact with the aluminum. In doing so, the aluminum protected all that other stuff from corrosion so where is all that other stuff?

Let's try an example. The entire plane weighed about 8,000 pounds and lets assume 1,000 pounds of that was noble metals. Lets also assume that each of these metals would have corroded 10% of their weight in 75 years so 100 pounds of steel and 700 pounds of aluminum would be gone, a total of 800 pounds, 10% of the entire structure. But, due to galvanic corrosion, the entire loss of weight is confined only to the aluminum so none of the steel is gone and 800 pounds of aluminum is gone which still leaves 7,200 pounds of aluminum to be found as well as that 1000 pounds of steel. Where is all this stuff?

gl
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 03:34:47 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #194 on: November 11, 2012, 03:31:17 PM »

Tim, here is a link to my website where you can see what I have written and also read for yourself the flight navigation manuals of the era  that support my opinions.

gl

Thank you, Gary, I had read that before, but just didn't realize that it was your work.

OK. Possibility (1) AE finally turned on her GPS...

or possibility (2) FN used the LOP to determine a heading towards Gardner Island, adjusting for easterly winds as best he could estimate.  He then draws that course on the chart and thereafter ignores the original LOP. The heading thereafter is determined by the chart, and how far along that course he estimates they have travelled. AE turns on the Autopilot to maintain as exact a heading as she could. Maybe FN takes another sextant reading every half hour or so to verify they are on track, relying mostly on longitude. Maybe she climbed to 19,400 foot service ceiling to (a) conserve fuel and (b) get a much better view (no problem climbing since by then they were so light). They actually come reasonably close to Gardner Island and identify it as land because of the clouds that form over warmer landmasses. Maybe they just plain lucked out.

Now that I think of it, I don't remember Amelia saying she was on the Line Of Position, but only that she was on "the line 157-337."
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 04:03:08 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 19   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP