| Author |
Message |
    
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12577
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 6:32 am: | 
|
>>What would you say if you cross-checked and found that the water in BR4 was seen above the floor plates even before the catastrophic failure of a bulkhead described by Barrett in BR5?<<
Parks, I would say that this is strong evidence of some sort of progressive structural failure which was opening up seams and allowing the ingress of water from below before it was likely to be coming down from above.
But that's just me.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 268
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 6:40 am: |
|
The only question I have is how do we prove that as Titanic sank that her floor plates seperated enough to allow water to come up through the floor plates like some have stated as their theory (which I am beliving is most likely what happened). I could see it being found out if the plates were popped up and seperated but wouldnt that be a little hard to tell if it was caused by the impact she suffered with the sea floor or during the sinking? |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 10:58 am: |
|
PARKS:
quote:Just to be clear, that's not what I said. Of course we need to examine BRs 5 & 6, but I have no intention of stopping there...we need to understand the rising water in BR4.
I never said that you said that; I was referring to something Steve said. My point was that BR #4 is not the only concern for study when it comes to determining how Titanic sank, although I contend that it is, indeed, a major point.
And, yes, the condition of BR #4 will tell us a lot. All your questions seem to point to an isolated opening below BR #4 to which neither BRs #3 nor 5 have access. Structural damage underneath? That definitely would expedite the sinking process and even ensure the breakup that did, in fact, occur.
STEVE: Yes you did mention BR #4. Please take a look here and above in your first post:
quote:"We will never fully understand why Titanic sank, though, if we can't determine the cause for the flooding in BR4."
SOLOMON:
First, welcome to the board. Nice to have you here. 
quote:It shows that the tear (break-up) was in a way, somewhat halted on the plates on the bottom of the Titanic keel, for a while (like when you tear bread, and the tear stops at the harder crust and you have to apply more pressure to tear the crust also...)--- and these plates gave way, diving to the Ocean floor, before the whole bow and stern sections plunged to the bottom.
If this is true, we need to find out why and how the flooding of the BRs contributed to that. It was all a chain reaction of events, but I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that due to the forces that built up in the T's structure that night, the punctures in the starboard bow were not the only opening to the sea below water level. It's very possible that the growing stress on the bending metal caused the hull to pop or stretch open in other places to allow water to seep in from below. Exactly how this affected the break is an interesting thought.
By the way, if you want to isolate a quote like you said you want to do, you type in this:
\ quote { quote to be copy/pasted }
The only thing is to not put spaces between any of these characters, excepted the words within the excerpt to be pasted. I hope that helps.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 390
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 11:28 am: |
|
I was quoting Parks earlier post. " "
My reference (below his comment) is specific for boiler room 6 (re the damaged plating) & 5 (coal bunker fire). If the doors were blown off by pressure, the ROV could look inside.
What happened in 4 is academic, the ship was foundering.
Either way, I'll leave this topic to you guys. |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2164
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Steve,
I disagree with you...what was happening in BR4 was not academic, it was part of the fatal damage that the ship sustained. Think of it...they had two sets of pumps (with the BR3 set having the greater capacity) operating in BR4 and could not keep ahead of the rising water. One pump set kept BR5 dry until a catastrophic event changed the situation.
Now, let's look at it from a forensic perspective...there's no visible damage to the hull outside of BR#4, all the way down to the bilge keel (which includes the void between the stokehold plates and the tank top). Maybe there's damage to the double-bottom structure, but how would water get past the watertight tank top? This is not an academic concern for me...I need to know what was going on in BR4 -- as well as BRs 5 & 6 -- in order to understand the larger picture.
Steve, when you comment on the shows that I work on, then you're commenting on my own personal work. I'll take your comments as you have offered them.
Michael,
I know where your comment about "progressive structural failure" is coming from but consider what I said above...we can see the entire hull above the watertight tank top on the wreck today and there are no open seams. And if water was coming into the double-bottom structure, how did the water rise past the tank top? Also, the timeline is such that there would be, for a period of time, more water in BR4 than BR5. Think of that from a loading perspective.
Matt,
There are no guarantees that we will be able to find what we're looking for. My job is to convince people with money and equipment to try. Even if we fail to find the Holy Grail, how can we lose if we manage to get a camera inside yet another unexplored interior (like the boiler rooms) inside the wreck? Even in our "failed" penetrations, we learn more about the ship that we didn't know previously.
That's all that I am willing to say on this particular subject for the time being. I'll share more after I have completed some unfinished work.
By the way, I believe that the Emmy promotional copy of "Last Mysteries of the Titanic" being offered on eBay at the moment is the Cameron edit that has yet to be broadcast. I checked with Earthship Productions and even they don't know, so I purchased a couple of copies off eBay 2 days ago and will be able to tell which edit it is once I receive one.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12587
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 4:55 pm: |
|
>>we can see the entire hull above the watertight tank top on the wreck today and there are no open seams.<<
Makes me wonder what was going on inside the double bottom then, and perhaps in areas that we can't even see because of the mud or because nobody got inside to take a look. If it was not coming down from above...and at the point of the sinking you have in mind, it wouldn't be...then it had to come from somewhere at the level of or below the boiler room.
>>Think of that from a loading perspective.<<
I am. I've been thinking in those terms since the Topeka Gathering of 2002. I'd love to see the computer modeling of this, but I'll bet the differential stresses don't make for a pretty picture!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Mike,
Can you please explain to me what is meant by a loading perspective in the context of the boiler rooms? This is a real thinker.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12594
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 5:44 pm: |
|
It's all about weight distribution and how it effects the structure of the ship, in this case, a structure which is already damaged and not up to taking the sort of uneven bending loads being imposed.
Think of what happens when the first five compartments which are already flooded, the one behind it isn't, but the next one is flooded and filling far more rapidly then the pumps can keep up with. Kind of like a stick being pushed down on both ends while the centre is against your knee.
Something's going to break!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 391
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 6:16 pm: |
|
"Steve, when you comment on the shows that I work on, then you're commenting on my own personal work. I'll take your comments as you have offered them."
After all the supportive posts I’ve made of your refreshing approach and perspective to analyzing the ship, you think I’m taking a swipe at your work There’s been hundreds of dives to Titanic since 1987. The one’s you’ve been involved in directly and indirectly have been the most progressive.
I’m sorry you’ve formed that opinion of me. And on that note, this is my final post on ET.
I hope your have a long and successful future in Titanic exploration and research Parks. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1246
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 8:11 pm: |
|
That's interesting, Mike. If BR #5 was dry while #4 was flooding fast, the stress was off-set. Yes, something has got to break. Not only is it important to find out what happened in BR #4, but how that affected the break three boiler rooms back.
STEVE: If you decide to come back periodically and read the board without contributing, I am sorry to see you go. This is a very interesting discussion, and everyone is welcome. Take care and good luck.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2165
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Steve,
Given our past correspondence, no one was more surprised than me by your acidic comments regarding TFM:MP and whatever else we might have in the works. Maybe I am a little sensitive because all I have ever heard about the show is, "Why are those guys on TV...they don't know the ship like WE do." Regardless, since we have never met in person, I can only judge you by your words. I took your most recent comments to be a surprising change in heart.
I'm going to take a break from posting, too. Michael, the discussion is all yours.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Solomon Sasson
Member
Username: james99
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 8:36 pm: |
|
quote:First, welcome to the board. Nice to have you here.
Thanks for welcoming me, Mark.
Ok, Wow, great! Thank you, Mark, also for showing me how to quote. This is great.
Yeah, Rojer Long said on the documentary is that on the wreck there is evidence that the decks were smashed and pressed together... Like, imagine holding the Titanic model, which has the break in the intended place--- on both opposite ends (bow and stern) and applying preasure on it inward, towards the center (like trying to create a "v" shape).
When the Titanic stern stood out of the water (Rojer claims that in a less steep angle than previously considered), the more-than-half submerged bow section (forward section of the break)-- at one point, came to create a shape of a very "open v"--- meaning that the bow-peak in the water was actually raised a bit when under water...
All this applied immense preasure, and in a way served to LOCALIZE it, on the keel plate (or double bottom) at the base of the "break-up"--- which in the end, gave way--- and when torn/broken, "released" the bow section to plunge into the ocean.
I wish I could have somehow shown to you, the Computer simulation they showed on that Doc...
In a way, it's not 'that' different or overly contradicting the previous views and conclusions of Cameron or Ballard--- The "break-up" is there and everything is quite similar except the differing view about angles, the shape of the "breakup", and how both sections of the breakup 'acted' with each other, prior to the sinking--- which mainly effected the bottom keel plates of the structure.
"--"See you later", became a promise kept." Charles Pellegrino (Author, "Ghosts of the Titanic")
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1248
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Solomon,
You're certainly welcome.  . As a matter of fact, go HERE for the whole series of formatting functions. I think you'll find them very fun and enlightening.
As for the Rojer Long documentary, I fear that I haven't seen it, so I am unable to comment on it at this time. As the discussion goes, however, the secret to where, when, why, and how the ship broke up lies in the series of boiler rooms--not one, but all of them. What I mean by that, however, is that no one boiler room takes the credit for the break; they all worked together to lead up to it. In order to figure out the entire picture, however, we have to determine what happened in each boiler room and at which point during the sinking. Without this information, we will have gaps.
quote:The "break-up" is there and everything is quite similar except the differing view about angles, the shape of the "breakup", and how both sections of the breakup 'acted' with each other, prior to the sinking--- which mainly effected the bottom keel plates of the structure.
Well, the thing is, though, that angles and the "shape" play an instrumental part in understanding the breakup, so please don't trivialize them too much. It's important to know on which points need primary focus, but we should remember that many factors played a part and have to be counted to paint that picture.
As for the "shape" of the break, the wreck itself tells us what that is; by looking at the wreck, studying it, we know. I devised a list two years ago that included every single room and area, on every deck, involved in the break. There were quite a few, but I had to cross-reference pictures of the wreck with the blue prints to ascertain the areas of which that list comprised, and the size, shape, and measurements of that broken up area of the ship was central in completing the list.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 1:02 am: |
|
There seems to be quite a bit of assumptions being made here concerning what happened and in what sequence. One is BR 4 was abandoned before Barrett left BR 5. Another is that the water seen in BR 4 came from damage somewhere due to the collision or stresses imposed because of the flooding intake. Both assumptions may be wrong.
Consider the following: Water was seen flowing down from E deck onto F deck on the starboard side just ahead of the No. 2 funnel casing by two different people about the time that the 1st lifeboat No. 7 was being launched. That was about 12:45 AM. The ship still carried a slight heel to starboard at that time. When Barrett left BR 5 he saw water coming from forward of him on E deck by the escape. Barrett estimated it was about 1:10 AM when he came out of BR 5. When Cavell left BR 4 with water 1 foot over the plates he did not notice any water on E deck. When got up to A deck only boats 13 and 15 were left loading on the port side. Barrett got into 13. Dillon left BR 4 just as water was first seen coming over plates. He estimated it was about 1 hr 40 min post collision (1:20 AM).
I will say no more.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 269
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 2:32 am: |
|
Parks, I agree. Need to do more exploration. I havent bought those dvd`s off ebay, mainly because i wanted the full show or both shows or what ever they did that was shown on tv. Never got a chance to see it and even with them showing reruns of it, cant catch it without access to the channel.
I took a look at your sinking diagram`s and I have to admit look very convicing. I made some of my own just using the profile blueprint of Olympic i found online back in 2005/2006, but i doubt their anywheres close to what happened. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12596
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 7:03 am: |
|
Colour me confused over the apparant sudden acrimony here, but perhaps were all over reacting on some level here.
Keep in mind that with the written word, we can't see the nuances of expression that we would see in a face to face conversation so it's easy...all too easy...to misinterpret somebody's intent. I don't see any reason for anyone to leave the forum because of that.
Steve Hall and Parks Stephenson rank among the finest researchers in the Titanic Community and I've come to think of both of them as friends. I'd hate to see either one of them leave for any reason. Both are valued members of the forum and we're all the wiser for their insights. If we don't always agree, well, that just goes with the territory.
On the matter of the breakup, I think we may be putting the cart before the horse if we look for any one thing to point at as the cause. The chain of events started with the interaction with the iceberg and ended with the ship breaking up as she made that final plunge. There were a lot of dynamics at work from the first which led to the last. Samuel could be right about the assumptions, Parks could be right, or both on some level could be on to something.
Likewise, something new could come up that may well have us all going back to Square One and completely rethinking everything. With Titanic, very little can truly be said to be set in stone.
The possibility of a progrsssive structural failure is one that occured to me for the first time back at the Topeka gathering and I'm of the opinion that on some level, this was a big part of what happened. Regardless of how the water got into BR#4, this only served to aggravate things. When you have the structural integrity of the hull girder compromised and you're throwing in differential flooding while lifting ten thousand tons of the ship's mass out of the water, the consequences aren't going to be pleasant, and they weren't.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 271
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:01 am: |
|
A theory is good, then something new comes to light that shatters that theory and a new theory is supported. How it always goes. I cant comment on how water was getting into BR#4 still need to get caught up and somehow get a copy of that discovery channel Titanic live rebroadcast if there still going on. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 1:12 pm: |
|
MATT: I, too, would like a copy, if I can ascertain the means of acquiring one.
As for theories, nothing is wrong with fostering them, as long as the facts known at the time and the principles of physics are maintained throughout. That's why we constantly ask questions.
MIKE:
quote:On the matter of the breakup, I think we may be putting the cart before the horse if we look for any one thing to point at as the cause. The chain of events started with the interaction with the iceberg and ended with the ship breaking up as she made that final plunge. There were a lot of dynamics at work from the first which led to the last. Samuel could be right about the assumptions, Parks could be right, or both on some level could be on to something.
The thing is, though, Mike, when it came to Parks alluding to the water rising through the deck plates in BR #4, we automatically considered the entire condition because he is a respected authority involve in and aware of the details regarding that facet of the sinking. Yes, Parks could be wrong, but because he, like Samuel, knows more than we do regarding this, who are we to question it? We can sure speak opinions, but we can't necessarily say that what the authority says isn't so, especially since we aren't as aware of the given situation as the authority is. If Parks seemed to jumped at the mystery of BR #4, we assume he must have had a good reason, no? I said before that there are many contributing factors in the sinking, but I contend that the place to find out how and why the ship broke apart as it did lies in the boiler rooms, because that's where most of the action took place regarding the ingress of water and the forces that played on the structure of the ship. What actually happened there is a different story altogether.
What I am saying is this: We are pretty sure that the answers lie in the boiler rooms, but what those answers are and how they came to be remain unconfirmed. In other words: where is not the question; how, when and why are those questions to which we should not make assumptions.
This is my perspective at this point in time.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 8:24 pm: |
|
To clarify what I trying to get at above. I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong. I am only hoping that nobody reading this or any of the posts here goes off and jumps to conclusions about anything yet. There could be many causes for water seen in BR 4 that have nothing to do with direct damage to the ship, and then again it may have everything to do it. It is a mystery as of now. And I fully agree with Parks when he said what happened in BR 4 and 5 are not academic issues, for they may both prove to be key factors in the overall set of events that took place. I hope one day exploration of these boiler rooms will take place and that conditions down there would be such that some answers will be found. If anything, my guess is more questions will be the result than definitive answers to some of the questions we now have. That seems to always happen.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12603
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 5:47 am: |
|
>>but because he, like Samuel, knows more than we do regarding this, who are we to question it?<<
We're the people who, like Parks, Samuel, and just about everybody else on this forum, are trying to understand how and why things happened as they did. I suspect that if anyone might be dismayed by the "Who are we to question [fill in the blank]" notion, it would be Parks Stephenson himself.
Why????
Because he's been doing nothing but asking questions and coming up with possible answers which he of all people knows could be wrong!
Most all of the interested parties in this thread have been following the forensics research for years and it's not lost on me just how quickly the dynamic can change with the revelation of new evidence.
Look at what happened on that last History Channel expedition where the sections of double bottom were "found."
Well, not really found as in "New Discovery" because the existance of at least one of these sections had been known for years. What was new was somebody taking a good hard look at them and noting that the sections showed no evidence of the sort of compression damage one would expect if some of the old theories were right. One close examination and the whole picture changed!
Now, we have hints of something new and possibly important that was revealed by computer modeling that may well have us all going "Damn! Back to square one!"
Beware arguements from authority, especially when the authorities are justifiably and publicly skeptical.
>>If Parks seemed to jumped at the mystery of BR #4, we assume he must have had a good reason, no?<<
Oh I quite agree in the strongest possible terms. Parks is not the sort of chap who's inclined to shoot from the hip. He wouldn't even hint at something like this unless there was a damned fine reason for it, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the new data is. We'll have to wait awhile, (And I hope you subscribe to cable or satillite so you can see the presentation) but I think it'll be worth the wait.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 274
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Michael, One thing is it is not easy to admit that you can be wrong or admit that you were wrong. Takes alot to say that. But like you said, we are all here to find out what really happened as best as we can. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 3:37 am: |
|
quote:I suspect that if anyone might be dismayed by the "Who are we to question . . ." notion, it would be Parks Stephenson himself.
I guess I wouldn't doubt that. It seems as if Parks asks more questions than provides answers. Sometimes he'll do both at the same time.
quote:What was new was somebody taking a good hard look at them and noting that the sections showed no evidence of the sort of compression damage one would expect if some of the old theories were right. One close examination and the whole picture changed!
I didn't see it, but I can believe how one little think can turn everything topsy-turvy. It's both aggravating and exciting at the same time.
quote:Beware arguments from authority, especially when the authorities are justifiably and publicly skeptical
Ya know, I used to have that attitude in the absolute sense, but I've learned to respect authorities, even though I may not agree with them on some points and/or have my own opinions. For example, I would be the last person to question (retired) Captain Eric Wood on how to run a ship. He's had years of experience and I have none, beyond the occasional boat ride or fishing trip. In this case, telling Eric that he's wrong about commanding a ship is beyond my scope of knowledge, so I don't question it. However . . . in a case like this, when answers are not so clear, I tend to ask questions. And, yes, I would be inclined to pose those questions. It depends on the particular situation, but don't always trust authority 100% because that authority doesn't know all of the answers.
quote:I'm looking forward to seeing what the new data is.
So am I 
quote:(And I hope you subscribe to cable or satillite so you can see the presentation) but I think it'll be worth the wait.
Not likely under my current set of circumstances, but I look forward to hearing about it and getting the DVD if/when it comes out. I am eager to get Cameron's new one as well.
MATT:
quote:we are all here to find out what really happened as best as we can.
Or to interpret. Yet, with more evidence emerging all of the time, theories and interpretations are either blown away or confirmed to at least some extent.
As for learning the total facts regarding the Titanic's sinking, we probably won't confirm everything, but hopefully we'll ascertain enough to fill in the gaps with a degree of confident certainty.
Also keep in mind hat the wreck is deteriorating, so we need to keep on it as much as we can now because I believe when she crumbles away, she'll take all existing forensic evidence--discovered and still unknown--with her and then it'll be gone forever. What evidence can a pile of dust provide?
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12617
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 6:05 am: |
|
>>Michael, One thing is it is not easy to admit that you can be wrong or admit that you were wrong.<<
Yes it does. For some, it's not as much a problem that you might think, especially if discerning the reality is more important to an individual then his own ego. David Brown is one such individual. I recall at a gathering listening to a conversation he was having with one of the attendees and offering up...among other things...a nice laundry list of things he'd been wrong about. He's done the same thing here on ET when finding evidence that a particular premise is mistaken.
David's approach is a lot like Thomas Edison's. He doesn't see 10,000 failures. He sees 10,000 things that we now know ain't so, and that gets us a lot closer to what is. Unfortunately, you won't find a lot of people with that kind of integrity knocking around these days.
>>I didn't see it, but I can believe how one little think can turn everything topsy-turvy.<<
Yeah, that bit with the section of double bottom changed a lot of things. If the break had been the top-down thing long believed, there should have been substantial compression damage, not a clean break. Surprise, surprise!
>>Ya know, I used to have that attitude in the absolute sense, but I've learned to respect authorities,<<
Respect is one thing, blind and uncritical acceptance "Because [fill in the blank] sez so." is quite another, because the guy who "sez so" could be mistaken on some point.
Skepticism isn't just naysaying for it's own sake, it's a method of critically evaluating information to see whether or not the evidence warrants provisional acceptance, but it's conditional upon being revised in the light of new evidence. That, by the way, is how the real experts do business. It's also the reason that scientists insist that there is no such thing as an "authority" on anything. Just people who have done a helluva lot more homework then others in a particular field of interest.
As you indicated, nobody knows all the answers. If they did, I daresay that this forum would be a mighty quiet place.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Mike,
Speaking about finding answers, some methods to conduct are better than others in certain contexts. The method employed is very important regarding the evidence we try to find and and how we attempt to search for it, and then once it is found, how we discern its significance. A particular method might be appropriate in one case, whereas the same method would not be appropriate in yet another, depending on the situation.
The breakup, as far as I can see at this point has two directions of study: left-to-right (from beginning to end) and from right-to-left (from end to beginning). In the first case, the means of studying the breakup would suggest that we start at the onset, which would be the contact between the ship's hull and the iceberg, and then go through the many stages of reactions brought on by the ingress of water up to the point of the breakup. This method seems to provide us with the cause-and-effect string that not only would eventually lead us to see what caused the breakup, but allow us to prevent gaps. In the end-to-beginning model, on the other hand, we start at the end result and then regress, or reverse the process so that we can eventually learn what started it all--the ship's contact with an iceberg. We need to need to ascertain how the break came about. Both means of evaluating the string of events is viable but not necessarily applicable. In attempting to learn and understand what happened, those looking for answers are best advised to utilize the right method.
For me, the left-to-right model would be prudent for the reasoning provided above. In order to determine how the break came about and why the breakup occurred as it had, the chain of ongoing reactions (i.e. the effects of each phase) would make it easier to understand that result. Beginning with the break, we'd start with the forensic evidence of the break itself and then analyze what kind of force(s) created it, how, and why. This method centers our attention around the target area and keeps our focus on that, but the progression of analysis is tougher because we proceed blindly, not necessarily knowing where to go or how, although we might, and quite often do, have our own ideas. We go one step back to the bow section immediately in front of the break, but where do we look and for what reasons? Not knowing and having a difficult time trying to determine these answers makes it impossible for us to move to the next step (or the previous phase, depending on how we perceive) and look for still more answers on earlier stages of the sinking, and on and on.
What I can't help wondering is whether or not our difficulty in finding or interpreting data lies not in the physical evidence itself (i.e. the wreck site) but in our approach. If we were to start at the contact point and gradually move forward, would that make finding the answers--the right answers--easier and less prone to misinterpretation?
Of course, this opens a whole other dimension of the process: discerning which type of research approach to apply and why so we can then effectively proceed to collect the data and find the right answers regarding the breakup and the sinking.
Is this more problematic, or will it ultimately make things easier?
Just a few thoughts.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12624
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 4:44 pm: |
|
For whatever it may be worth, the finite stress analysis modeled by Gibbs and Cox was done on a beginning to end basis. It does a nice job of showing how one thing led to another and you can look at it at any point you wish. You can see a screencap of one of the images at http://home.flash.net/~rfm/BREAKUP/Breakup.html along with Roy Mengot's understanding of what the evidence pointed to at the time he put the site together.
I would point out that one of the problems with the Gibbs and Cox model...in my opinion of course...is that it only accounts for loading as water filled up the forward end of the ship and lifted the after part clear of the water. It does not, as far as I can see, take into account how the stresses might be distributed if you have signifigent damage to the double bottom and the framework because of interaction with the iceberg. Bluntly, if a part of the ship's structure cannot carry the load, another part has to.
I'm not sure I'd be wedded to any one method of looking at it when you need to look at the whole of the picture to understand cause and effect. Be it right to left, or left to right, whichever works for you, go for it.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Mike,
I acquiesce to perceive the same weakness of the Gibbs and Cox model. It merely illustrates a simple concept rather than describing any of the forces that caused it. The fact, too, that this explanation strictly pertains to what happened on the exterior shows that this model is, to use a vulgar term, "half-assed." Still, I can see what you mean about new evidence either confirming, changing, or eliminating theories. This seems not as much silly as it does erroneous in light of the many developments that have come about since this model was created.
And, yes, I see the advantages of a beginning-to-end approach, as it would naturally cover all the forces involved in the break and the sinking--forces that are necessary to understand and include in any quality analysis, especially an analysis that describes what occurred inside during the breakup, where the forces were more apparent, not to mention frightening, to anyone who should have unfortunately happened to be in that part of the ship at the time.
By the way, I have seen this before and was looking for it. Despite its shortcomings, it is very important regarding any article I were to write. I couldn't remember the web address. Thank you.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Mike,
I was just looking under Books and noticed an old 2006 post of yours in which you've mentioned the transcripts to the Mersey Wreck Commission, which I presume is also an invaluable read when it comes to Titanic. Do you have a link to that transcript? Also, I couldn't find it, nor do I remember it. Could you please provide the link to the site that features the Inquiries? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 3481
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Here it is, Mark:
www.titanicinquiry.org
"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: 1259
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Thanks Jason. Did you get the email I sent you a couple of days ago?
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 3486
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:39 pm: |
|
You're welcome, Mark. Yes, I did, but I haven't had a chance to respond yet.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
43° 44' 01" N, 79° 24' 16"W
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12648
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 5:37 am: |
|
>>This seems not as much silly as it does erroneous in light of the many developments that have come about since this model was created. <<
In fairness to the Gibbs and Cox people, they did the best they could with what they had which...unfortunately...was nowhere near what we have available today. It's still useful as a baseline to show what happens when a hull is stressed beyond the limits of what it can possibly survive, but it's been superceeded by more complete data.
Those who advocated staying away from the wreck, and not even so much as go down for a look would do well to note that because of the discoveries of the past ten years, we have a better understanding of what most likely happened which stands to be further improved in the near future.
None of this would be possible if expeditions weren't going down to look things over and document what they find.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 3:47 pm: |
|
JASON:
quote:Yes, I did, but I haven't had a chance to respond yet.
That's okay. It was sent on the spur-of-the-moment. It's not really important now. I'm sure that Mike, who also received it, realizes that by now.
MIKE:
quote:In fairness to the Gibbs and Cox people, they did the best they could with what they had which...unfortunately...was nowhere near what we have available today. It's still useful as a baseline to show what happens when a hull is stressed beyond the limits of what it can possibly survive, but it's been superceded by more complete data.
That's why I summed it up to merely erroneous. It's all hindsight, and you know what is said about hindsight . . .
The thing about the Gibbs & Cox model is that it provides a basis on which to elaborate. The theory of the break according to their account may be incorrect due to new evidence pertaining to compression, but the premise, I think, is still sound, and that refers to the imbalance of forces do to the weight of water against this particular type of metal and the fact that the construction wasn't designed to withstand the persistence of such forces.
quote:None of this would be possible if expeditions weren't going down to look things over and document what they find.
I am all for respecting the dead, and, yes, this is, in fact, a grave site. Still, I think we'd be doing the dead a disservice by not looking for answers that could save more lives in maritime situations. Legal stipulations have been set down to not remove anything from the wreck itself, only from the debris field, so discretion and respect are being maintained in the large, except for the independent salvage operators who like to strip wrecks clean of the contents. Yes, we've also recovered many artifacts from this wreck site, but such findings have served to educate and pay tribute to those lost as well as those who survived. One way of showing respect is by remembering who they were, what their world was like, and what actually happened on that fateful night.
Too idealistic? I don't think so.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12665
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 4:07 pm: |
|
>>Too idealistic? I don't think so.<<
Niether do I. I think just about everybody who takes an interest in Titanic wants to understand how and why it happened as it did, and that won't happen unless people go down there and take a look. Even a century later, there are lessons to be learned from the whole Titanic fiasco. Not making the effort to learn them would be a disservice to the memory of the 1500 who went out and never came back!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 4:24 pm: |
|
quote:Even a century later, there are lessons to be learned from the whole Titanic fiasco.
True, but as I said before, best to get what we can fast because that ship won't be around forever. The question is regarding this: How long before the ship is gone? It appears to be deteriorating faster and faster as time goes on. This no doubt explains what researchers like Cameron have been making ongoing dives over the past ten or fifteen years. They continue to gather ongoing information.
When comes the point when we stop and say, "Okay, we got everything we can possibly get from studying that wreck. Nothing more to see"? The unique thing about studying the wreck is that much of the information has turned up inadvertently, without a thought in mind to look for it. It proves as the saying goes: The things [lost] for which you're looking usually show up when you're not looking for them.
This is one of the considerations that makes Titanic research so interesting and exciting, because you know that you're bound to find something new on every single dive, whether you're intent on finding something or not.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Jeremy Aufderheide
Member
Username: jerauf
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Do you really think we'll ever gather all of the information from the wreck that we want? I think it's an endless process and one that will yield more information, questions, and findings as the wreck deteriorates and falls apart. |
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Hi Jeremy,
Yes, I agree. Mine was a rhetorical question intended to emphasize that same point. The research is unending, except when the ship has, in fact, turned to dust on the ocean floor. That sense of endlessness in exploration and research is one of the many reasons that Titanic has become so fascinating (at least to me). When the learning stops, so will the interest, and as far as I'm concerned, that's never going to happen. ;)
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12669
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 5:13 am: |
|
>>Do you really think we'll ever gather all of the information from the wreck that we want?<<
Not a chance, and for just the reasons that Mark pointed out: The wreck is deteriorating, and cloud cuckoo schemes notwithstanding, it really can't be stopped. We may not see it in our lifetimes, but eventually, the decay will become so far advanced that we won't be able to seperate the patch of iron oxide from the mud.
That, in my opinion, is what makes the current research as important as it is. The window of opportunity is closing, so we need to learn what we can while we can.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 1:47 pm: |
|
quote:eventually, the decay will become so far advanced that we won't be able to separate the patch of iron oxide from the mud.
At that point, there wouldn't really be anything left to analyze, so even considering such a separation would serve no purpose. I know what you mean, though.
quote:The window of opportunity is closing, so we need to learn what we can while we can.
Yes, but how much? That's the question. Will we be able to answer all the crucial questions, like being able to tie together all of the primary phases of the sinking, from iceberg puncture holes to the final plunge of the stern, with respect to all of the significant forces that were at play on the hull? So many theories keep popping up all the time that I'm not quite sure whether they would muddle or inspire the development of ideas brought about by the data. We need to keep a clear and focused view of things, yet Einstein once said that imagination was more important than knowledge.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1553
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 3:26 pm: |
|
quote:yet Einstein once said that imagination was more important than knowledge
Yes, he was right because knowledge is limited, while imagination is endless.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12676
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 7:52 pm: |
|
>>Will we be able to answer all the crucial questions,<<
Probably not. There are always those little nagging unknowns that we can never hope to puzzle out. Still I think it's worth the effort and some high profile shipwrecks serve to open up some of those windows of opportunity.
You might be surprised at just how poorly understood ship sinkings are...or were...from a forensics standpoint until recently. The attitude was "It filled up with water, went down, killed a lot of people, end of story." The dynamics of how ships behaved during a foundering and after the hull was submerged just weren't that closely studied.
Were the Titanic just a clunky old frieghter, I doubt anyone would know or even care about not only what happened, but how and why it happened. However, she was a crack express liner that managed to pass from a footnote in history to legend because she managed to sink her first time out and kill 2/3rds of the people aboard, some of whom were quite prominant personalities of the time.
Love the legend or lump it, it catches people's interest and that sort of thing makes it a bit easier to get potential sponsors to open up their purse strings and fund the research. Without that, I doubt we would come even close to understanding the dynamics of shipping casualties because nobody would care beyond the guys in the white lab coats.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 1267
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 3:19 pm: |
|
After going into the archive to look for a link, I noticed this and realized that I had initially missed it. I'll address it now:
quote:Mark,
The steel shell plating is not fragile...it would be a major undertaking to cut through the hull. Besides, cutting into the hull would be a violation of the wreck protection treaty. No legitimate expedition will attempt to cut through the hull.
Not only for the reasons mentioned, but cutting into the hull would definitely affect the status of the evidence we seek. I thoughtless suggestion on my part. My apologies. Let's just hope that access can be gained safely from inside. That would be a feat, and I look forward to hearing about it.
quote:Love the legend or lump it, it catches people's interest and that sort of thing makes it a bit easier to get potential sponsors to open up their purse strings and fund the research
The irony here is that the legend is filled with myths and falsehoods which keep the legend going and growing. To further twist the irony is the fact that such a myth-riddled legend has inspired countless dives because it is filled with myths to either confirm or destroy. To thinks that the 'glory' myths spurred their own destruction. That's what makes Titanic so interesting as well.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!"
Rough-edged but harmless --Mark Hopkins
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12694
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 29, 2007 - 3:51 am: |
|
>>The irony here is that the legend is filled with myths and falsehoods which keep the legend going and growing. <<
There is that much. We find ourselves dealing with it every day and there are some myths that have taken on such a life of their own that they're very difficult to kill. From the tech side of the house, there's the myth of inferior steel. It just never seems to go away. Then there's that incredibly silly ship switch theory which won't die even though Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall wrote an entire book which nuked it as thoroughly as anything can be nuked.
The bad news is that all this can be a substantial barrier to clear thinking and analysis. The good news is that the legend keeps interest alive so clear thinking people have the opportunity to get the resources they need to check things out and get the facts.
Perverse, isn't it?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Erik Wood
Member
Username: ewood
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 5, 2007 - 4:36 pm: |
|
I am curious as to whether anymore indepth information about the pieces found and shown on the history channel will be discussed again, and more information released on them.
Does anybody have any information on this???
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 12807
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 5, 2007 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Damn Erik, it's good to see you back with us again!
Unfortunately, the History Channel appears to be holding things close, although it looks like they're doing something with it for an upcoming documentary. Since Parks discussed what he could above without breeching Non-Disclosure, I think we'll just have to wait for the end result to come out.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Denise A. Hunyadi
Member
Username: dahunyadi
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:05 am: |
|
Hey, Capt. Erik! Great to see you on the board again. As Mike said, the History Channel has something in the works which sounds like it will deal with the very subject you're asking about. No one seems to be able to talk about it much, however, other than to say it'll air sometime this year.
I'm writing this from a hotel room in Cincinnati where John and I are staying after seeing the Titanic artifact exhibit earlier today. At dinner tonight we wondered about what you were up to, and how we looked forward to hearing from you again. What a nice surprise to get on the laptop and see you on ET again! Hope all is well with you and your family.
Denise |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1960
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Captain Erik--
Your hat is ready for shipping. Contact me directly. I've lost all information due to a 'puter puke.
News, too.
-- David G. Brown |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
