4 ms·

> The issue isn't whether it can be built That's the misunderstanding then. Because I'm specifically answering whether it can be built or not. This was the ori

> The issue isn't whether it can be built That's the misunderstanding then. Because I'm specifically answering whether it can be built or not. This was the original question which started the thread: "So it's not possible to design ducting for HVAC/engine exhaust that either closes automatically at a certain angle, or has some mechanism that lets out gases without letting in water?" > but whether you can certify and insure it. You said "at any cost". At any cost I buy Lloyds, instruct them to work with my army of engineers until they find a way to satisfy their requirements, and we insure it. That's within the "at any cost" budget you set. > At anchor, but not at sea, where to achieve it's CE rating, the offending vents would be required to be closed. Okay. I'm not seeing the problem with that. You will have to explain to me why does that prevent us from making the vents automatically close at anchor when the boat is capsizing. Where do you see the problem with this?

closewith 2y ago
> You said "at any cost". At any cost I buy Lloyds, instruct them to work with my army of engineers until they find a way to satisfy their requirements, and we insure it. That's within the "at any cost" budget you set. And then buy the IMO and your own country to certify. > Okay. I'm not seeing the problem with that. You will have to explain to me why does that prevent us from making the vents automatically close at anchor when the boat is capsizing. There are no automatically closing vents certifiable for human ventilation, so you cannot have an automatically closing vents and just manually cover it when necessary. > Where do you see the problem with this? I think the problem is with you, who cannot seem to believe that marine engineering with centuries of experience could have found reasonable trade-offs in the regulations.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > I think the problem is with you, who cannot seem to believe that marine engineering with centuries of experience could have found reasonable trade-offs in the regulations. You are putting something in my mouth which I did not say. Can it be done? Yes. Physically it can be built. Is it a reasonable trade-off? I don't think so, and I didn't said that it is.

closewith 2y ago

> You said "at any cost". At any cost I buy Lloyds, instruct them to work with my army of engineers until they find a way to satisfy their requirements, and we insure it. That's within the "at any cost" budget you set. And then buy the IMO and your own country to certify. > Okay. I'm not seeing the problem with that. You will have to explain to me why does that prevent us from making the vents automatically close at anchor when the boat is capsizing. There are no automatically closing vents certifiable for human ventilation, so you cannot have an automatically closing vents and just manually cover it when necessary. > Where do you see the problem with this? I think the problem is with you, who cannot seem to believe that marine engineering with centuries of experience could have found reasonable trade-offs in the regulations.

krisoft 2y ago
> I think the problem is with you, who cannot seem to believe that marine engineering with centuries of experience could have found reasonable trade-offs in the regulations. You are putting something in my mouth which I did not say. Can it be done? Yes. Physically it can be built. Is it a reasonable trade-off? I don't think so, and I didn't said that it is.