| Author |
Message |
    
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 234
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 8:05 am: | 
|
Thats what Im saying. Ive worked with metal before and I know metal can bend, but ive never seen metal reall compress unless you use, a special shrinking tool. Ive also checked out Parks website before. Ive made my own sinking diagrams using a general side profile. I used some inquiry reports such as Lightoller reporting that when the bridge was level with water that the crows nest was level. That was a 7* tilt. Most of the diagrams ive seen show the bridge is just reaching the water and the crows nest is with it. Well he said that he thought about swimming towards the crows nest, only time for that would be if the bridge was fairly well under water but before the #1 funnel fell. so that would be a 7* tilt about and @ 7* water is just reaching the base of the #1 funnel. On A-Deck the grand staircase windows are almost all the way under and the water hasnt reached the marconi room but is just about there. The water I would say would start pouring in through the weather cover at 12* tilt and at 11* tilt the Boat deck windows for the grand staircase would have been under and the #1 funnel would have been falling or have fallen by that time and I put the break up at 15*. But to get back on Topic of the Grandstaircase. Only thing I can say is that the bouyant forces of the wood is what caused it to come to pieces. the whole staircase was made of wood that rested on a steel framework on D-Deck. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 9:58 am: |
|
Roy Mengot originally devised the theory of bottom-up split, but one thing that always bugged me about that theory is that it didn't take into account the vast areas that broke away from both the bow and the stern. Cameron's version is the same way: the ship merely splits in two (not halves, because they are not equal), which is too simple of an explanation. The condition of the two pieces of the wreck clearly show that the ship didn't just break or split. Parks' simulation makes much better sense to me, and it corresponds neatly with the state of the wreck on the ocean floor.
This is the first time I've seen this visual, and I'm glad I did.
All existing information regarding the break shows what happened on the outside. Now the flip-side is to explore what happened on the inside.
For me, this scenario will help explain how the areas inside reacted to the forces involved. First, I clarified which areas were affected by/in the break up; now to describe how they were so. This will, of course, be a challenge.
Thanks for the link, Michael. This definitely helps a great deal. Yes, as always, I appreciate your input. I would be happy to refer to you and others. I know you're not an engineer, but you are more experienced with ships and hydrodynamic forces than I am. You have always provided me with a lot of insight. Again, I thank you.
Matt, I presume that you're an engineer? You seem very knowledgeable in this area.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 235
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 10:44 am: |
|
Actually im not an engineer, Im a automotive technican but in my spair time i build warship R/C models that i battle and i build custom cars up and repair car body panels that are rusted. Thats why i say i have enough experiance in metal working cause i usually reformed steel body panels on older cars.
And about the break. I could see it being a clean break at first cause the Aft Expansion joint was located just infront of the main engine room housing. and just behind the #3 funnel. I could see the expansion join opening up and allowing the ship to start her break all the way down to B deck and then after that the steel plates would have to start to tear, and in that situation i would think the # 3 funnel would have played into this cause right below the #3 funnel is the first class lounge and then below that deeper in the hull is the first class dinning saloon. I would put the tear orignally at the aft Expansion joint. Then somewheres between the surface and the ocean floor a third piece was created. If you go back to the old discovery channel show on Titanic they took and made a computer model of her and built the computer model deck by deck as they said. and at the time of the break up stresses were very high in the red which was exceeding what the hull could handle in one location on the bottom of the hull below the waterline and in the area of the boatdeck from the aft grand staircase to the expansion joint and it showed the expansion joint with a good 3 foot gap. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12475
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 4:55 pm: |
|
I think if you all look at the CGI model that Parks put together, you'll notice that it starts with a clean break in a few areas. Whether or not he believes there was any such is something I obviously can't speak to. It may be the way it started, or it could be the limitations of the program he's using which can't quite show things in the detail he would like.
The one thing I'm 100% certain of is that if the break started clean, it sure as hell didn't stay that way. Once any number of hull plates and frames give up the ghost, anything which depends on them for structural support all of the sudden has to start carrying additional loads, and it get's worse as more parts of the structure fail under the loads imposed on it. What survives has to carry increasing loads until it gets to the point where it can't carry any more. What you see is the end result of a random series of failures which starts small, but which cascades to the point where everything just goes straight to hell, ipso facto the entire midsection simply disintigrating.
At least that's my deck plate sailor's understanding of it. If Roy Mengot, Parks Stephenson, or Sam Halpern are lurking, they could no doubt explain it better.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 3435
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Hi Mark,
You're welcome. I'm glad that that thread helps you at least. All the best with your theory and I'd be very interested in seeing an article on it for ET as well; that's if you decide to write one.
Thank you for your early birthday wishes; much appreciated.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
43° 44' 01" N, 79° 24' 16"W
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Hey Matt, Mike,
I agree that the break started out as a split in the aft expansion joint. This expansion joint was near or around various wide-the open spaces--the aft grand staircase, the RE room at the bottom, and the lounge and 1st-C dining saloon just forward--so it was prone to at least one type of weakness. I can't believe that the aft expansion joint didn't play some roll in the initiation of the break up. Too much of a coincidence--the split initiation and the aft expansion joint were in exactly the same place.
But, as you've said Michael, it sure didn't end as a simple 'clean break.' Boy, what a shock that must have been to anyone in that area at that point in time. It was suggested that Andrews and Stead were in the smoking room when it was torn apart. Supposedly, the only confirmation was from a steward who was racing aft down A-deck a few odd minutes before the break began and saw at least Andrews inside. That doesn't prove Andrews stayed in there through all of the destruction, but it's my bet that he probably did. His body was never found, nor was Stead's. That doesn't prove anything either. This is one issue I will definitely be covering in my piece. If anyone has any testimony or supported info on this, please share if/when you can. Thanks.
No problem, Jason. Don't party too hard, hehe. By the way, I wouldn't call it a theory as much as the sharing of new details supported (hopefully) by already-existing information.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12494
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 4:36 pm: |
|
I think that any testimony as to what actually happened in the smoking room in this instance wouldn't be all that revealing since anyone who survived would be the bloke who didn't hang around to watch. (A ship's structure collapsing all around you can be hazardous to your health!)
In collating the testimony which spoke to the breakup, Bill Wormstedt has already done the legwork and published an article at http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1570 It's in the pdf. format so make sure you have Adobe Acrobat Reader.
I think you might notice a very interesting pattern of evasion and avoidance on the part of Lord Mersey's whitewash court.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 4:47 pm: |
|
So, this means I don't have to worry about reading the thousands of pages of testimony? That certainly helps! By the way, if Bill has already done this, how will mine be significantly different? I know I will be adding more detail, but would that be enough to establish a worthwhile article?
As for the ol' wh*t*w*sh, I wouldn't be surprised. That's old news to me.
By the way, you're the only one here that deliberately crosses out words and sentences. How do you do that? (Where's that link you supplied? I have to look for it).
Thanks for Bill's link. That really helps! ;)
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Actually, Reading the testimony will no doubt shed light on the breakup by also analyzing what people saw and did in that area before the break occurred. That just might be relevant, too.
I presume that obviously the testimonies refer to what was witnessed on the outside. Eyewitness testimony will be next to impossible to assess what happened on the side, considering that no one who would have seen it, as you've said, survived to tell about it (my kingdom for a dead witness!).
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12498
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 5:27 pm: |
|
>>So, this means I don't have to worry about reading the thousands of pages of testimony?<<
Not neseccerily, but it will help point you in the right direction. Keep in mind that what Bill did was point out what sort of information was available to the inquiries and from who, and the avoidance of which on the part of the Wreck Commission points to a very real cover up. (The official denials notwithstanding, does anyone seriously think that the Mersey Court was unaware of the fact that it really happened?)
What he didn't attempt to do was the forensics analysis that you're interested in, so you'll be exploring some very different ground.
>>By the way, you're the only one here that deliberately crosses out words and sentences. How do you do that?<<
Go to http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi?pg=formatting
>>(my kingdom for a dead witness!).<<
Dial 1-800-Oujia Board!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 6:20 pm: |
|
not this, but this.
Boy, I'm really getting the hang of this! Thanks, Mike. 
Cool! 
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Yes, Mine will deal more with what was destroyed inside, how, and when, and the cause and effect reaction between these points. The primary sources here will have to be the photos and painting of the wreck, along with the blueprints of each deck. I may explain what happened on each deck and then progress to the next deck lower. Explaining what happened first (example: did funnel three fall before the deck chair closets crumbled?) will no doubt take a while of analysis. I will have to use the photos, paintings and blueprints as support for my claims. It's definitely worth trying.
By the way:
quote:Just a test
Didn't see that code on the formatting page, so I made a logical guess.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Anyway, sorry for digressing in this thread. It is intended to cover the discussion of the dome's destruction, not my personal projects. My apologies. Please resume on the dome.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12500
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 7:13 pm: |
|
>>Yes, Mine will deal more with what was destroyed inside, how, and when, and the cause and effect reaction between these points.<<
And that's the ground which hasn't been covered all that well. General cause and effect, yes, but not specifics as to what happened inside. This may require you to hit quite a bit of testimony outside of anyone who spoke to seeing the breakup. The ship's baker for example, and the noises he reported hearing from down below suggest that the ship was already starting to come unglued from within before anybody saw anything from the outside.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Why not specifics inside? That's what my long and extensive list was to illustrate--what happened inside in relation to the rooms and other areas that were lost.
The baker, yes, which is one reason why I had mentioned testimony of those people who had been in that area before the breakup occurred. However, testimony is only one type of evidence; the wreck itself says a lot, too.
Mike, the reason I had been posting my queries was so that others may see and respond to them and provide input, but I don't want to take up space here where the dome discussion should be ensuing, so I'm taking this to email if it's all right, unless you're able to form a new folder and transfer the previous eight-to-twelve posts to it?
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12506
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 3:46 am: |
|
>>Why not specifics inside?<<
Probably because it wasn't deemed all that important, and perhaps because there would be so many random and unpredictable events happening at nearly the same time that it would be difficult if not impossible to model.
If you want, you can simply start a new thread and we can carry on with this there. Hopefully, some of the more engineeringly inclined will take an interest and add their insights.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Mike: Please see "Specifics of the Breakup," which I am about to open in this category, for ongoing posts in this discussion.
Now the dome conversation can continue as others see fit.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 3439
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 4:51 pm: |
|
quote:I wouldn't call it a theory as much as the sharing of new details supported (hopefully) by already-existing information
Well, I'll be looking forward to whatever you come up with.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
43° 44' 01" N, 79° 24' 16"W
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
