8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by Hank » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:35:26




> > Is the search continuing today?  I hear only routine coms on 8983.

> There seems to be some chatter on 5696. very faint here in Ottawa with my
> YB400 and indoor wire.

> Marc

Some activity on 5690 also.

HankG

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by N8KD » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:44:49



> Is the search continuing today?  I hear only routine coms on 8983.

Yes, hearing the search here on 5696 USB at 1840.

Steve
Holland, MI]
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by N8KD » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:05:25






> > > Is the search continuing today?  I hear only routine coms on 8983.

> > There seems to be some chatter on 5696. very faint here in Ottawa with my
> > YB400 and indoor wire.

> > Marc

> Some activity on 5690 also.

As Hank said there is some activity now on 5690 at 1903. CG 1503 (C-130) with
CAMSLANT. They were up on 5696 just prior.

Also hearing CG Puerto Rico on 5696. They might be busy down there with Haiti.

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by CW » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 05:32:47

Highly doubtful.


Quote:>   Also, could it have been, dare
> I say, terrorist related????

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by Eric F. Richard » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:48:06


> a ship went down somewhere...27 onboard with 6 survivors. several bodies
> pulled out of the water..

Has anyone found a link to a picture of the T/V Bow Mariner (before
the accident)?  I'm trying to figure out the grainy CNN IR image of
the stern sinking.  It looks to me like the stern was sheared off
completely from the rest of the ship, but I can't tell whether I'm
looking at an intact stern poking out of the water or a sheared off
point with the stern under water.

Thanks,

Eric

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
 - Dilbert

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by N8KD » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 07:17:48



> > a ship went down somewhere...27 onboard with 6 survivors. several bodies
> > pulled out of the water..

> Has anyone found a link to a picture of the T/V Bow Mariner (before
> the accident)?  I'm trying to figure out the grainy CNN IR image of
> the stern sinking.  It looks to me like the stern was sheared off
> completely from the rest of the ship, but I can't tell whether I'm
> looking at an intact stern poking out of the water or a sheared off
> point with the stern under water.

Per the pic available from the Drudge Report what you are seeing is the intact
stern poking out of the water as it sinks bow first.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by Mike Barnet » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:43:11

Has anyone heard exact coordinates of the wreck site on these broadcasts?
If anyone has the coordinates, could you please e-mail me?
Thanks!
Mike
 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by WShoot » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:03:32

I don't think any of you mentioned it but the ship was Houston-bound. I believe
I once worked on it 15-20 years ago, when it was about new. But I may have it
confused with any of the other number of Bow-somethings vessels out there, a
few of which I'd worked on.

Appareently it was under Norwegian charter from a Greek company. Here's a photo
of it during better times:

http://www.naftemporiki.gr/news/static/04/03/01/881353.htm

The electric motors for the pumps, although sealed, are elevated above the
deck. Now, if they had a pump itself raised out of the tank, leaving an open
access to the tank, and then there was a static electricity discharge
downwind...

I don't think ethanol is used in our gasoline in Texas, but it may be mixed
here at one of the several refineries, before being sent to California.

I'm wondering what the ethanol is doing off the east coast. I thought the stuff
was made in the Midwest.

By the way... It takes more energy to make ethanol that the resulting ethanol
can deliver. It's a corn subsidy thing. Pay the farmers to plant all the same
stuff, so we have to import what we really need.

Bill, K5BY
Houston/Galveston area

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by RH » Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:51:15


> I don't think any of you mentioned it but the ship was Houston-bound. I believe
> I once worked on it 15-20 years ago, when it was about new. But I may have it
> confused with any of the other number of Bow-somethings vessels out there, a
> few of which I'd worked on.

> Appareently it was under Norwegian charter from a Greek company. Here's a photo
> of it during better times:

> http://www.naftemporiki.gr/news/static/04/03/01/881353.htm

> The electric motors for the pumps, although sealed, are elevated above the
> deck. Now, if they had a pump itself raised out of the tank, leaving an open
> access to the tank, and then there was a static electricity discharge
> downwind...

> I don't think ethanol is used in our gasoline in Texas, but it may be mixed
> here at one of the several refineries, before being sent to California.

> I'm wondering what the ethanol is doing off the east coast. I thought the stuff
> was made in the Midwest.

> By the way... It takes more energy to make ethanol that the resulting ethanol
> can deliver. It's a corn subsidy thing. Pay the farmers to plant all the same
> stuff, so we have to import what we really need.

> Bill, K5BY
> Houston/Galveston area

BILL [K5BY],

Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
of imported foreign oil.  This also results in a 5% reduction
in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
in the USofA.  YES it is a Farm Subsidy but it creates many more
"JOBS" between the Farm and the Pump.  IMHO: It is "Better"
to spend a few Foreign Aid Dollars here at Home.

California (where I live) needs to start growing Corn for Fuel
(Ethanol) and Manufacturing Ethanol in-state for it's own internal
consumption.  Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?
Every Gallon of California Ethanol Fuels a New California Economy.

~ RHF

.

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by Frank Dresse » Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:56:41


Quote:

> Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
> of imported foreign oil.  This also results in a 5% reduction
> in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
> in the USofA.

Ethanol has about half the fuel value as gasoline.  Gasahol, at least
around here, is 90% gasoline, 10% ***.  If there's any merit to the
arguement that gasahol reduces imports by 5%, it's because 5% is half of
10%.   Another way of saying the same thing is an efficent car will get
5% better gas mileage with gasoline as compared to gasahol.

Unfortunately, there's less to the oil import reduction than it seems.
Growing corn uses a considerable amount of fertilizer.  Fertilizer
produced with oil, much of imported.  Cultivating it uses fuel.  Not to
mention the fuel needed to transport the stuff, ferment it and distill
it.  In the end, ethanol production justs transfers alot of fossil fuels
into a "renewable resource".

Quote:> YES it is a Farm Subsidy but it creates many more
> "JOBS" between the Farm and the Pump.

How many jobs does ethanol production create?  Corn production is highly
automated.  I ezpect the same is true of the distillers.  But, the
ethanol subsidy needs to take less than four dollars a year from every
American to total over a billion dollars.  I'm sure we lose more than a
billion dollars a year in discretionary income every year to the ethanol
subsidy.  I also have no doubt that redirecting a billion dollars into
the pockets of a few fat cats costs more jobs than it "creates".

Quote:>  IMHO: It is "Better"
> to spend a few Foreign Aid Dollars here at Home.

Foriegn aid?  Are you comparing the mega-farmers and
Archer-Daniels-Midland to a bunch of tinhorn dictators?  Well, OK.

Quote:

> California (where I live) needs to start growing Corn for Fuel
> (Ethanol) and Manufacturing Ethanol in-state for it's own internal
> consumption.

Is California an efficent corn producer like Iowa or Illinois?  I
thought fruits domininated California's agricultural production.  I
suppose you could distill grapes and oranges into fuel if you spend
enough money.  I suppose if it was an efficent use of resources,
somebody would be doing it profitably on their own now.  I do believe
taking money from people for things they don't want will almost
certainly cost more jobs than it creates.

Quote:>  Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?

Because someone else can do it cheaper and better?  Because forcing
people to spend money on ethanol means they have less money to spend on
take out pizza or new vacuum cleaners or shortwave radios?  Because I'm
tired of transfering wealth to well connected fat cats?

Quote:> Every Gallon of California Ethanol Fuels a New California Economy.

> ~ RHF

> .

I can't say ethanol didn't create work for me.  I got to replace a few
fuel pumps and fix cars with carb trouble after Illinois decided to drop
the gas tax on gasohol and make it cheaper than gasoline.  But that's
like saying the government ought to subsidize tire slashing to create
jobs in Akron.

Frank Dresser

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by Mark Kei » Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:23:43




> > Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
> > of imported foreign oil.  This also results in a 5% reduction
> > in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
> > in the USofA.

> Ethanol has about half the fuel value as gasoline.

I've never had a car that really liked running on that stuff. My V6
monte carlo, which I've since sold, hated the stuff. My ford truck
will run on it. Barely...
Still pings...I try to avoid the stuff. MK
 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by Frank Dresse » Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:36:30


Quote:

> I've never had a car that really liked running on that stuff. My V6
> monte carlo, which I've since sold, hated the stuff. My ford truck
> will run on it. Barely...
> Still pings...I try to avoid the stuff. MK

Gasahol forces the motor to run lean on motors without an oxygen sensor.
I had a old 77 Kawasaki KZ 400 which bucked and misfired under load with
gasahol, but ticked like a watch on gasoline.  It had non adjustable EPA
mandated carbs in which I couldn't raise the needles to richen the
mixture.  No problem, real gasoline was still available at Amoco, but at
the highest premium price in the area.  It didn't use much.  Well,
thanks to Congress, the EPA, Archer-Daniels-Midland and the corparate
farm lobby, gasohol is now "The Clean Air Fuel", and gasoline is
effectively banned in this area.

Actually, I was able to slip an O-ring under each needle to richen up
the mixture, and it ran better, but I had to leave a hold down***
loose with the mod.  I didn't like leaving screws in the carb loose, and
I didn't want to make a more permanent, irreversable mod.  I guess I was
hoping the government would notice that many vehicles misfired on
gasohol, and dumped tons of unburned fuel into the air.  Not to mention
that drivers prefered their vehicles ran smoothly.

Thanks to ADM and the corporate farm lobby, my Coke is gummed up with
gooey corn syrup and my gas is ***erated with ***.  I expect
they've got the skids greased for fueling the Fires of Hell, as well.

Frank Dresser

 
 
 

8983 usb coast gaurd rescue

Post by RH » Sat, 06 Mar 2004 09:37:26




> > Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
> > of imported foreign oil.  This also results in a 5% reduction
> > in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
> > in the USofA.

> Ethanol has about half the fuel value as gasoline.  Gasahol, at least
> around here, is 90% gasoline, 10% ***.  If there's any merit to the
> arguement that gasahol reduces imports by 5%, it's because 5% is half of
> 10%.   Another way of saying the same thing is an efficent car will get
> 5% better gas mileage with gasoline as compared to gasahol.

> Unfortunately, there's less to the oil import reduction than it seems.
> Growing corn uses a considerable amount of fertilizer.  

YES - American Made Fertilizer.

Quote:> Fertilizer produced with oil, much of imported.  

YES - But NOT from the Middle East (Arabs).

Quote:> Cultivating it uses fuel.  

YES - Cultivation is one more American Job.

Quote:> Not to mention the fuel needed to transport the stuff,

YES - Transportation is many more Unionized "Teamsters" American Jobs.

Quote:> ferment it and distill it.  

YES - Fermentation and Distillation are one more American Job.

Quote:> In the end, ethanol production justs transfers alot of fossil fuels
> into a "renewable resource".

YES - An American 'Renewable Resource'.

Quote:

> > YES it is a Farm Subsidy but it creates many more
> > "JOBS" between the Farm and the Pump.

> How many jobs does ethanol production create?  
> Corn production is highly automated.  

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.

Quote:> I ezpect the same is true of the distillers.  

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.

Quote:> But, the ethanol subsidy needs to take less than four dollars
> a year from every American to total over a billion dollars.  
> I'm sure we lose more than a billion dollars a year in
> discretionary income every year to the ethanol subsidy.  
> I also have no doubt that redirecting a billion dollars into
> the pockets of a few fat cats costs more jobs than it "creates".

YES - From my view point just the opposite is true.

Quote:> >  IMHO: It is "Better"
> > to spend a few Foreign Aid Dollars here at Home.

> Foriegn aid?  Are you comparing the mega-farmers and
> Archer-Daniels-Midland to a bunch of tinhorn dictators?  Well, OK.

NO - Just that the 'spending' of our Tax Dollars should be done
at home when possible.

Quote:

> > California (where I live) needs to start growing Corn for Fuel
> > (Ethanol) and Manufacturing Ethanol in-state for it's own internal
> > consumption.

> Is California an efficent corn producer like Iowa or Illinois?  

YES - It can be on the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley.
http://www.redwaveradio.com/

Quote:> I thought fruits domininated California's agricultural production.  
> I suppose you could distill grapes and oranges into fuel if you spend
> enough money.  I suppose if it was an efficent use of resources,
> somebody would be doing it profitably on their own now.  
> I do believe taking money from people for things they don't
> want will almost certainly cost more jobs than it creates.

YES - But that could be said of ALL TAXES.

Quote:

> >  Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?

> Because someone else can do it cheaper and better?  

YES - But is Cheaper is not always better.

Quote:> Because forcing people to spend money on ethanol means they
> have less money to spend on take out pizza or new vacuum
> cleaners or shortwave radios?  

QUESTION - Isn't the Environment - The 'need to Save the Planet
(The Great Mother) more Important then such trivial consumer items.

Quote:> Because I'm tired of transfering wealth to well connected fat cats?

BUT - That is the 'nature' of ALL TAXES.

Quote:> > Every Gallon of California Ethanol Fuels a New California Economy.

> > ~ RHF

> > .

> I can't say ethanol didn't create work for me.  I got to replace a few
> fuel pumps and fix cars with carb trouble after Illinois decided to drop
> the gas tax on gasohol and make it cheaper than gasoline.  
> But that's like saying the government ought to subsidize tire
> slashing to create jobs in Akron.

NO - I do not advocate *** Criminal Acts.
Please Note:  You May Be TAXED TO DEATH . . .
But Taxes are Not in an of themselves *** criminal acts.

Quote:

> Frank Dresser

.
ir... ~ RHF
= = =  I Remain... Radical Humanoid Freak ;:<o)]
.
.