Does a capital ship sinking actually SUCK a swimmer down to drown?

[M. Stradbury]

Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

[pf...@aol.com]

Yes. Dead center-of-mass is near enough a vacuum that the eddy will trap anything close and drag it to the bottom.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Tony Hwang]

M. Stradbury wrote:
> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?
>

Like toilet bowl water swirls.

[Micky]

I would think so. I was in a 6-man rubber raft that went over a
small falls and under water and though I wasn't tied to the raft, I
went under water too. How much more so with a big ship.

Something about traveling and being on my own made me fearless however
and I confidently waited, with my eyes open iirc, until I popped up
again a few seconds later. Without the raft.

This was the Dranze River in France, just east of Geneva, Switzerland.

[Micky]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

I don't think the swirl is the part that matters. If you pour a
half-bucket of water in a toilet, it will drain without swirling. It's
the draining and emptying that matters.

[Tony Hwang]

Basic fluid mechanics. You know that the swirl direction of opposite of
Southern hemisphere. CCW and CW. Rotating earth.

[Micky]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:02:56 -0700, Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Micky wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:04:23 -0000 (UTC), "M. Stradbury"
>> <mstra...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
>>> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

In panic, someone might not hold his breath, and even more likely, he
might not take a big enough breath to be able to hold his breath for
long, but I would think if one does get a big breath and doesn't
panic, he should be able to hold it easily long enough to come to the
surface again.

Does it depend on how fat he is how fast he surfaces? Probably. So
if you anticipate being on a sinking ship, try to gain weight first.
(When my brother was in Viet Nam during the war, my mother wanted him
to gain weight to tide him over if he was taken prisoner. He didnt'
go on patrol and he wasn't a flier, so the odds were very slim he
would be taken prisoner, but other than that, I think she was right. )

>>
>> I would think so. I was in a 6-man rubber raft that went over a
>> small falls and under water and though I wasn't tied to the raft, I
>> went under water too. How much more so with a big ship.
>>
>> Something about traveling and being on my own made me fearless however
>> and I confidently waited, with my eyes open iirc, until I popped up
>> again a few seconds later. Without the raft.
>>
>> This was the Dranze River in France, just east of Geneva, Switzerland.
>>
>Basic fluid mechanics.
>
>You know that the swirl direction of opposite of
>Southern hemisphere. CCW and CW. Rotating earth.

So I've heard.

Hmm. This post is not in reply to my reply to you where I took issue
with the importance of swirling. But I'll answer anyhow.

I'm not doubting that water in toilets swirls, or that water in eddies
swirls. I'm saying that swirling water has nothing to do with
sucking someone in behind a sinking ship.

In fact the water probably isn't swirling. The forces that make water
swirl, in a bathtub for example, are weak compared to the tremendous
amount of water that surrounds a large sinking ship. If the ship
were not sinking, there would be no swirling, and I don't think
sinking an inch every minute is enough to permit or cause swirling.

It's when the weight of the ship and the water it now contains is
greater than the weight of the water the whole ship displaces that
sinking quickly begins, and at that point there isn't time enough
before the ship has totally sunk for substantial swirling to begin.
Perhaps not any swirling at all. Note that it takes quite some time
to have it begin even in a bathtub.

The stage of sinking slowly can take hours, but when sinking quickly
begins, it takes no more than a minute, maybe two.

To beat this to death, I think the thousands of times people get to
watch water go down a sink drain overhwhelms their lack of experience
with sinking ships. However one can drop or throw rocks in a lake or
a river pool, off a pier for example, and see that there is no
swirling.

(One could even attach small balls that float to the rock, with some
weak "adhesive" that fails when wet, and time how long it takes the
balls to return the surface. Varying the depth of the water, or
the release time of the "glue", one could measure three data points
and extrapolate to a ship and a person, and a person with a life vest.

(Or maybe one doesn't need the rock for all of these experiements.
While the water falling into the opening would slow down resurfacing,
that water has filled in the hole within a measurable number of
seconds, and the real question is, What is the acceleration of a human
of given weight and size due to buoyancy, and how long would it take
to stop downward travel and cause upward travel, and what would the
total time be? All but the downward speed could be extrapolated just
from measurements made by releasing floating balls from an underwater
device.)

[Tony Hwang]

m

Hey, couple months ago whale watching boat rolled and sank hit by a big
wave West of Vancouver Island, few died and some survived. A couple
survived is from Calgary here. They both said they got sucked under and
then surfaced. My 2nd uncle is life time Navy man, Captain(ret), ROKN.
He said same thing.

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/12/2015 11:04 AM, M. Stradbury wrote:
> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?
>

Mythbusters tried it, and concluded that there was no significant
sucking sown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvU_dkKdZ0U

Sylvia.

[Micky]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:47:56 -0700, Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca>

I heard abou tthat.

>survived is from Calgary here. They both said they got sucked under and
>then surfaced. My 2nd uncle is life time Navy man, Captain(ret), ROKN.
>He said same thing.

I didn't hear about that. Good to know. Should make OP happy to
know too.

Just remember to pretend you're in the doctor's office, suck in a big
breath and hold it.

[Tony Hwang]

So when ship is abandoned, crews jump off the ship, they hang around the
sinking ship, right? They always swim away from the ship as much as
they can. Ask any sailors.

[Sam E]

I think there was a TV show where a kid called a lot of people in places
like Australia, to ask them which way the water swirls when they flush.

--
4 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

"We could believe in God if he shortened the road for the lame, led the
blind or fed the starving." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth
Reading And Other Essays_]

[M. Stradbury]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:

> Like toilet bowl water swirls.

A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool isn't
according to Sandlin and Muller.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water-toilet-swirl/#vRjaqfm0bSqs
"Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
(and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins counter-clockwise
in the north and clockwise in the south, you just might not be able to
see it with your toilet water."

[M. Stradbury]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:51:47 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Mythbusters tried it, and concluded that there was no significant
> sucking sown.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvU_dkKdZ0U
>
> Sylvia.

Nice find!

Will a Sinking Ship Suck You Down with It? | MythBusters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvU_dkKdZ0U

Theory 1:
Air mixes with water makes the water less dense, hence
sucking you down.
Theory 2:
Cavities in ship causes water to rush into the ship, hence
sucking you down.
Theory 3:
Ship falling down creates a vortex above it, hence
sucking you down.

[Sylvia Else]

That's rather circular.

There is a wide spread belief that one can get sucked down, and there's
no reason to think sailors have any better knowledge of this than anyone
else - it's hardly something most will ever experience - consequently
one would expect them to swim away.

Anyway, sucking people down is not the only possible hazard represented
by a sinking ship.

Sylvia.

[Tony Hwang]

Do you have any maritime experience? Worked on any kind of ocean going
vessel(s)? Possess any knowledge gained from real life experience?

[O]

Back then, the reason to get away from the sinking ships was not the
suction but the boilers exploding.

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/12/2015 4:19 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
>
> Do you have any maritime experience? Worked on any kind of ocean
> going vessel(s)? Possess any knowledge gained from real life
> experience?

Experience of ships? No. How would any of that help in deciding whether
the vessel would suck me down if it sank?

Or do you think there's some sort of mechanism that allows enlightenment
by osmosis?

Sylvia.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 01:04 M. Stradbury napsal(a):

> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?
>

I suppose there are many eye witnesses.

My not confirmed idea is,

that for very most time
is sinking too slow to be dangerous in this way.

But in final stage,
the one ship end is often submersed
and the ship is sliding down fast,
or the ships turns upside down,
or horizontally positioned ship accelerates
sinking toward the bottom.

In such scenario the motion is fast,
causing vertical streams and vertigos.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 02:56 Micky napsal(a):

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:04:23 -0000 (UTC), "M. Stradbury"
> <mstra...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
>> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?
>
> I would think so. I was in a 6-man rubber raft that went over a
> small falls and under water and though I wasn't tied to the raft, I
> went under water too. How much more so with a big ship.

But it could be because of your motion dynamics,
as you inertially continue water under,
until your buoyancy gradually reverted your velocity.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 04:51 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

> On 22/12/2015 11:04 AM, M. Stradbury wrote:
>> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
>> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?
>>
>
> Mythbusters tried it, and concluded that there was no significant
> sucking sown.
>

I have often the impression their experiments are designed
in the first place rather for the effect,
than to really investigate the nature of phenomena.

E.g. I watched their investigation of economic effect
of frequent switching on/off
the incandescent, fluorescent and LED lights.

They were over focused to refute the obvious nonsense
the light at switching consume more power
than saved by being off, and were successful there.

OTOH, experiment part about saving power
versus shortening device life was very poorly designed
and result had no statistical value.

[Micky]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:18:34 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 22/12/2015 v 02:56 Micky napsal(a):
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:04:23 -0000 (UTC), "M. Stradbury"
>> <mstra...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
>>> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?
>>
>> I would think so. I was in a 6-man rubber raft that went over a
>> small falls and under water and though I wasn't tied to the raft, I
>> went under water too. How much more so with a big ship.
>
>But it could be because of your motion dynamics,
>as you inertially continue water under,
>until your buoyancy gradually reverted your velocity.

True. I'm no longer convinced. (Even though I doubt mythbusters on
general principles). If one were right by the ship when it went
quickly down, one would fall into the hole it left, but the water it
pushed aside would be crashing back right after the ship passed also.
How deep the person would go is a question.

I think if you were standing on the deck, whether the deck was
horizontal or leaning, you could drop as fast as the ship did. Why
not? Until there was enough water surrouding you for buoyancy to
matter.

But if you were 3 inches from the ship, already floating in the water,
would you fall over like in a waterfall? I think so, but like I say,
you'd be competing with the water to see who and what dropped first.

One could experiement with little floating balls and big rocks dropped
close to them, or better yet, held close to them at surface level and
then released. A method for determining how deep they go would be
needed.

Anyhow my point originally was no swirling. I coudl have kept silent
on other stuff.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 08:58 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

Nautical society has advantage of collective experience
of huge number of people, surviving the ship sinking.

Even if I had been Nobel laureate for physics,
sailors would know more about surviving on sea than me.

If personalizing,
Sea has already laughed to many theoretical thoughts.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 05:36 M. Stradbury napsal(a):

> Theory 1:
> Air mixes with water makes the water less dense, hence
> sucking you down.

I have seen a video where a boat was in a lab sinked by this way,

in document about the Bermuda triangle,
following the hypothesis
about sudden huge gas release
from the sea bad or underwater vulcanos.

Sinking a swimmer with density close to water
is much easier than sinking a boat.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 07:06 O napsal(a):

> Back then, the reason to get away from the sinking ships was not the
> suction but the boilers exploding.
>

I agree it is the best to get far from a wreck
independently on if whirl sucking is a danger or not.

[Micky]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:13:47 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Dne 22/12/2015 v 05:36 M. Stradbury napsal(a):
>
>> Theory 1:
>> Air mixes with water makes the water less dense, hence
>> sucking you down.
>
>I have seen a video where a boat was in a lab sinked by this way,

I knew a guy who drowned in club soda.

I think there was a lot of scotch, too.

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/12/2015 9:06 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 22/12/2015 v 08:58 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
>> On 22/12/2015 4:19 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you have any maritime experience? Worked on any kind of ocean
>>> going vessel(s)? Possess any knowledge gained from real life
>>> experience?
>>
>> Experience of ships? No. How would any of that help in deciding whether
>> the vessel would suck me down if it sank?
>>
>> Or do you think there's some sort of mechanism that allows enlightenment
>> by osmosis?
>>
>
> Nautical society has advantage of collective experience
> of huge number of people, surviving the ship sinking.
>
> Even if I had been Nobel laureate for physics,
> sailors would know more about surviving on sea than me.

For most things, perhaps. But how many sailors have experience of a
sinking, much less such experience from the the immediate vicinity of
the ship. Those who got sucked down, if any, won't be around to tell the
tale. Those who didn't get sucked down, and survived, would be
counter-examples.

Sylvia.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 12:13 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

I do not say current sailors, but history
of survival records and withnesses.

There are 2 other options.

Those surviving seeing others being sucked down,
Those being sucked down not enough to die.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 04:51 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

But the did not make any attempt
to maintain geometrical similarity.

IF a sailor size was 1/4 of a ship size,
he would not be sucked either.

I am not sure, if the viscosity has to be scaled
as well for that matter, but I guess it has.

As I mentioned in my other post
the Mythbusters do not care much
about reliability of their experiments and interpretations.

[taxed and spent]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ddrvml...@mid.individual.net...

mythbusters is a crock.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per M. Stradbury:

>Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
>under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

Dunno what a capital ship is but am guessing it's big.

I saw an interview clip in which Lord Louis Mountbatten told of
surviving his destroyer's sinking - along with a senior NCO who said at
the time something like "Well sir, the scum always rises to the surface"
so I am guessing that both were in the water when the ship went down
under them.

--
Pete Cresswell

[M. Stradbury]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:53:14 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Dunno what a capital ship is but am guessing it's big.

My bad for not defining it, but you, sir, are correct, although
in looking it up, I realized I was not correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/21/2015 07:04 PM, M. Stradbury wrote:
> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?
>

Yes. The main mechanism iirc is that air escaping from the sinking ship
causes enough bubbles that the swimmer can't stay afloat, and sinks too
deep to get back to the surface.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Bob F]

M. Stradbury wrote:
> Is it true (or an urban myth) that a swimmer would be sucked
> under (presumably to drown) when a capital ship sinks?

I would think that huge bubbles of air coming out of a sinking ship could easily
drop people deeply under water. If a bubble surrounds you, you will not be
floating anymore. You will be falling.

[Bob F]

I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
counterclockwise. QED.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per M. Stradbury:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...
--
Pete Cresswell

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 17:19 Bob F napsal(a):

There are too strong forces, fast current speeds
and random turbulent processes
for Coriolis force to have any effect.

[taxed and spent]

"Poutnik" <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n5buih$4bn$1...@dont-email.me...

> Dne 22/12/2015 v 17:19 Bob F napsal(a):
>> M. Stradbury wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:51:29 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:
>>>
>>>> Like toilet bowl water swirls.
>>>
>>> A toilet bowl is too small to show the Coriolis effect, but a pool
>>> isn't according to Sandlin and Muller.
>>>
>>> http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/water-toilet-swirl/#vRjaqfm0bSqs
>>> "Derek Muller and Destin Sandlin, the minds behind the Veritasium and
>>> Smarter Every Day YouTube channels, respectively, do show that water
>>> (and even hurricanes or cycloness) preferentially spins
>>> counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south, you just
>>> might not be able to see it with your toilet water."
>>
>> I just flushed both my toilets. One went clockwise. The other went
>> counterclockwise. QED.
>>
>>
> There are too strong forces, fast current speeds
> and random turbulent processes
> for Coriolis force to have any effect.
>

When I was in Ecuador, I did my own test. Quite a bit north of the equator,
I filled a wash basin with water and pulled the plug. The water swirled one
way.

AT the equator, I did the same thing, and the water just drained.

A bit south of the equator, I did the same thing, and there wasn't much of
interest.

Further south of the equator, I did the same thing, and the water swirled
the opposite way.

I eliminated water current, toilet bowl rim jet patterns, etc.

Q.E.D.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Ever heard of WWI and WWII?

Lots of ships sunk and lots of detailed records.


--
Jim Pennino

[M. Stradbury]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
> smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far were:

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/12/2015 v 22:50 M. Stradbury napsal(a):

> But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
> plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
> and toy ships or something).

Be aware of surface tension.

[MJC]

In article <n5chck$gu4$1...@dont-email.me>, poutni...@gmail.com says...

>
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?

Mike.

[Tony Hwang]

If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Tony Hwang wrote: - show quoted text -
"Basic fluid mechanics. You know that the swirl direction of opposite of
Southern hemisphere. CCW and CW. Rotating earth. "

Coriolis does not apply to toilets. The direction of
rotation in a toilet bowl is determined by how the
jets(holes underneath the rim) are angled.

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:25:12 -0700, Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

When changing size, especially on the scale of a battleship compared
to a floating object in a bathtub, all sorts of things don't scale the
same. For example if an ant was scaled up to human size it would no
longer be able to have the same strength to weight ratio it enjoys at
its regular size. Another example that seems excessive but is true is
that to small flying things, like bees, the air seems much more
viscous than it does to us. I was reading several years ago in Science
News that the viscosity of water to a swimming human is similar to
what small flying insects experience flying in air. I wonder what the
world is like for very small life forms, like bacteria, and very large
ones like blue whales.
Eric

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:07 MJC napsal(a):

> In article <n5chck$gu4$1...@dont-email.me>, poutni...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
>
> Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?
>

sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sputnik

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
"artificial satellite," extended from the name of the one launched
by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik "satellite,"
literally "traveling companion" (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi,
"traveling companion of the Earth") from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku,
from Russian so-, s- "with, together" + put' "path, way," from Old
Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- "to tread, go" (see find (v.)) +
agent suffix -nik.






--

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:25 Tony Hwang napsal(a):

>
> If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.
>

That is not needed
but it is very difficult to maintain similarity.

[Micky]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:19:12 -0800, "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not surprising. Normally, quality home builders will put in a CW
toilet and a CCW toilet because if they were both the same direction
and both got flushed at once, it can damage the connection where the
house sits on the foundation. If you buy a home already built, you
should make sure your toilets are opposite each other, or you should
be careful not to flush both at once.

[dvus]

On 12/23/2015 3:08 AM, Micky wrote:

I have never heard anything like that in all my years (50 of them) of
construction, nor have I heard it from the plumbers to whom I have
talked. If flushing a toilet can damage "connections" we better start
building things a lot better.

--
dvus

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/12/2015 v 11:23 dvus napsal(a):

It rather looks like you became a joke victim.
Due random turbulent effects, the result of the toilet splash
is random as well.

What may be the issue
is the design of plumbing wrt the capacity.

If all guests of multi floor hotel
got diarrhea after eating "salmonellized" dinner...

[Bob F]

LOL! Really.

[Tim R]

Does the Bounty count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_(1960_ship)

This was lost during Sandy and many died. There is a really well done book detailing the last voyage. People did get caught in rigging.

[Robert Green]

"Poutnik" <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:n5df7m$4ro$1...@dont-email.me...

> Dne 23/12/2015 v 00:07 MJC napsal(a):
> > In article <n5chck$gu4$1...@dont-email.me>, poutni...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> >
> > Related to the familiar word "sputnik"?
> >
> sputnik had original meaning traveling companion, so yes.
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sputnik
>
> sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
> "artificial satellite," extended from the name of the one launched
> by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik "satellite,"
> literally "traveling companion" (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi,
> "traveling companion of the Earth") from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku,
> from Russian so-, s- "with, together" + put' "path, way," from Old
> Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- "to tread, go" (see find (v.)) +
> agent suffix -nik.

How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?

--
bg

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/12/2015 v 19:31 Robert Green napsal(a):

>
> How about "KAPUTNIK"? Which I first heard in the Coen Brothers' "
> Miller's Crossing" - do you know its meaning?
>

I do not think it has Slavic origin.
It is probably related to kaput .

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=kaput

--

Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[Chuck]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:31:36 -0500, "Robert Green"
<robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:

>KAPUTNIK
It was a name of a character in 1960s Mad magazine.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus