| Author
| Message
|
    
Trevor Rommelley
Member
Username: trevr
Post Number: 60
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 12:47 pm: |       |
I thought Lightoller said that the base of funnel 1 and the crows nest were level at the waterline? If that was the case, the screws don't break the water. |
Trevor Rommelley
Member
Username: trevr
Post Number: 62
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 7:39 pm: | |
Samuel's article is stimulating but I am not sure aboutt he numbers he plots on the graph of eyewitnesses' view of list as a function of time.
On the same note, Wilding said that the boilers would move if the angle of trim exceeded 35 degrees. Looking at the boilers in the wreck (BR 2), this obviously didn't happen. So, how come the 45 degree angle has become so widely and unquestioningly accepted? |
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 836
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 9:31 pm: | |
Trevor: Then again the *eye witnesss* accounts from CALIFORIA's Donkey Man Gil? reported..."She looks to have a high end out of the water", just before he reported "That ship that was firing rockets, she seems to sailed over the horizon".
As David Brown said..."There are so many things that we know and so many things that we do not".
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25007
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 2:49 am: | |
>>I thought Lightoller said that the base of funnel 1 and the crows nest were level at the waterline? If that was the case, the screws don't break the water.<<
If you take a look at the first illustration in Samuel's article, you'll note that the crows nest is level with the ocean and the screws are clear of the water. If the ship dipped to the point where the water was level with the base of the funnel, the crows nest would have been submerged but the screws would still be exposed.
>>On the same note, Wilding said that the boilers would move if the angle of trim exceeded 35 degrees. Looking at the boilers in the wreck (BR 2), this obviously didn't happen. <<
Which is demonsterably questionable. Take a look at the Britannic's wreck. The ship is lying on her starboard side and the boilers are still on their foundations.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
walter hojka
Member
Username: walterhojka
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 3:03 am: | |
The only boilers then that are not in their foundations are the ones from boiler room 1.
It seems unlikely that they would just spill out. Some force must have sheared them off.
Walter Hojka
The steel doesn't lie |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25031
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 4:59 am: | |
>>It seems unlikely that they would just spill out. Some force must have sheared them off. <<
It would have been the breakup itself since that part of the ship basically just disintigrated. No mysterious forces at work here beyond the consequences of an over stressed structure giving up the ghost.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
Trevor Rommelley
Member
Username: trevr
Post Number: 63
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 11:29 am: | |
But Sam's picture doesn't show the water level at the base of the first funnel.
As for the boilers, I think the amount of list refers to the amount of forward tilt, which would allow the boilers to slide out of their beds. A sideways tilt would not allow this due to the beds acting like "chocks", preventing sideways movement. |
Trevor Rommelley
Member
Username: trevr
Post Number: 64
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 11:36 am: | |
With apologies to Samuel Halpern. The white line indicates the water level joining the crows nest and the first funnel.
 |
walter hojka
Member
Username: walterhojka
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 1:19 pm: | |
>which would allow the boilers to slide out of their beds<
Where the boilers not bolted down? I find that hard to believe. Surely the boilers were securely fastened in case of a sudden collision or mishap.
Any movement of the boilers would risk a break in the steam pipes. Not a good thing.
>that part of the ship basically just disintegrated<
The double bottom did not simply disintegrate, it has been found in four pieces. Unless the boilers were not fastened down one would have expected to find the boilers still attached to the hull pieces. The boilers could have sheared off upon collision with the bottom of the sea, but I believe there is significant separation in the resting place of the single end boilers and the hull pieces to which they were attached, which leads me to the conclusion that they probably were separated at the surface. Unless the boilers were never bolted down. Does anyone know if those boilers were attached?
There are many mysteries regarding the breakup of the ship. The ship did not simply disintegrate, some specific key failure caused a chain of failures. Each individual piece of wreckage tells a part of the break-up story, and I am convinced that those loose boilers and double bottom pieces are very near to the beginning of that story. |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2230
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 2:29 pm: | |
The two pieces of double bottom appear to "fill in" any missing hull between the bow and stern sections. If there are any more pieces, they are quite small.
It is impossible to see the tank top because the pieces are upside-down on the bottom of the sea. There seems to be some indication that the boiler beds remain in situ, although that remains to be proved. The boilers are quite a distance away from the pieces of double bottom, indicating they parted company early in the breakup -- probably near the surface. The boilers would have fallen in a relatively straight line to the sea bed, while the double bottom pieces would have somewhat "fluttered" (if you can use that term on tons of metal) down and landed at some distance away.
-- David G. Brown |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25034
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 3:33 pm: | |
>>The double bottom did not simply disintegrate,<<
No, but most of the midsection did. That the sections of double bottom held up is either a testement to just how ruggedly they were built, random chance doing it's thing, or both.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2275
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 3:50 pm: | |
>>The white line indicates the water level joining the crows nest and the first funnel. <<
It pays to go to the primary source. From testimony at the American Inquiry, p.91:
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Well, roughly, the crow's nest was level with the water when the bridge went under water.
Senator SMITH. Was it in the water?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Was just about level with the water.
Lightoller was on top of roof of the wheelhouse when he left the ship. The diagram in my article was drawn to match Lightoller's observation. The angle of trim would have been very close to 10°.
As far as "the list as a function of time" plot in my article, I can quantify each and every point on that curve which will be fully documented in a future article or book. If anyone has specific information that they could reference that could point to any errors on that plot, then please let me know so we can get them resolved. Thanks.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2276
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 4:05 pm: | |
>>I was not even aware that Paul Mathias undertook an EOSCAN imaging of the buried port-side forward hull.<<
Similar damage was found on the port side. See pp.113-114 of Tim Foecke & Jennifer McCarthy's book, "What Really Sank the Titanic." As the authors remarked about the conclusions in the 97 SNAME report and media versions concerning the sonar imaging, it "was a classic case of overstating findings, disagreement among investigators, and deceitful scholarly practice."
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jason Schultz
Member
Username: tytanik
Post Number: 16
Registered: 5-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 10:21 pm: | |
One thing that should be looked at is Theyer's account. If taken too literal then no.1 won't fall at all. Also it's impossible for no.1 to send Jack towards B, it blocks the path no matter what. He was 40 ft away, on the starboard side. When no.1 falls, B would float aft and over to amidship due to the suction bringing it in. If it were no.2, Jack would be brung under, then pop up right next to it. So that and the hand full of accounts saying that the lights went as it broke means that he could not have mistaken it with no.1. These people are all ones that are pretty nearby the ship.
This means that water would have to edge no.2 almost, which is because the quick sequence of the break and falling of it. All others say that she slowly righted herself, so it's probable that he missed the righting. He'd come back up to it going back into the air. After this, the ship would bend backwards because the bow isn't going any more then 17-25 degrees as the rest of the water is hugely coming from the back.
Therefore, this my proof and reasoning for more a 17-19 degree angle. Funnel no.2 couldn't fall if water is not starting to weaken the base during the break. The whole lights situation also shows that Titanic needs to have the list added to get much of it. If she's breaking the traditional way, they'd all note this. If she broke over to port first and then right as the lights were out, then many would have missed this. |
Trevor Rommelley
Member
Username: trevr
Post Number: 77
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 7:04 am: | |
Also, its widely accepted that funnel 1 fell to starboard (alright, it fell to the starboard and forward). How can this be if the ship had a huge list to port? I cannot see how the funnel stays could affect the trajectory of the funnel falling. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25224
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 3:16 am: | |
>>I cannot see how the funnel stays could affect the trajectory of the funnel falling.<<
Depends on which ones failed first. If the ones on the port side failed, then you have a lack of tension there but you still have tension on the surviving stays. Guess where the stack is going to be pulled!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2009 - 1:04 am: | |
There is a tendency to think of the funnels as falling from the top down. It probably did not happen that way. When Britannic sank it was noted that the funnels toppled as water reached their bases. The opinion is that hydraulic forces of downflooding moved the supporting structure and caused them to collapse.
In Titanic, we see pretty much the same pattern, although it is not so clear because of darkness and, perhaps, the breakup. However, funnel #1 seems to have toppled when water got to its base, and the same with #2.
-- David G. Brown |
walter hojka
Member
Username: walterhojka
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 4:30 am: | |
How The Titanic Broke Apart:
As the bow took on water the ship began to bend and the double bottom took on a slightly curved shape. This curve was relatively uniform with one important exception: the hull underneath the reciprocating steam engines which were large cast pieces firmly bolted to the ships bottom. These engines did not bend, nor did the double bottom beneath them. This created a kink in the bend of the bottom at the forward end of the engine room.
The first rivets to shear were those in the keel at the point where the engines were pulling the bottom up and over the bottom section of boiler room no.1. Once there was sufficient rupture of the bottom the engine room floor slid up and over the floor of boiler room no.1 shearing those boilers from there beds and crumpling in the bottom of the ship.
The breakup of the ship likely was the result of the ship reaching its tipping point. The bow was quickly picking up downward momentum which delivered added stress amidships and broke Titanic's back. Ultimately the bow lost momentum due to water resistance and reversed the break ripping the ship in two. It is like a brittle piece of metal which will bend one way, but snaps in two when bent back the other way. The upper decks would have been the last to separate. Perhaps that long stringy piece of boat deck still attached to the stern was the last piece to pull apart.
Walter Hojka
The Steel Doesn't Lie
|
walter hojka
Member
Username: walterhojka
Post Number: 10
Registered: 1-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 4:32 am: | |
Here is the image |
Jeremy Aufderheide
Member
Username: jerauf
Post Number: 301
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 1:42 pm: | |
Are there any eyewitness reports that describe the breakup from the inside? Decks collapsing, etc? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25414
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 2:22 am: | |
>>Are there any eyewitness reports that describe the breakup from the inside?<<
Anybody who was still inside the ship to see the breakup almost assuredly did not live to talk about it. By the time it happened, the final plunge was already well underway. There may well have been an earwitness by way of the baker who reported hearing noises while inside the ship which he thought was something giving way. I'd offer the testimony but the Titanic Inquiry Project website appears to be down at the moment.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 4:15 pm: | |
>>Are there any eyewitness reports that describe the breakup from the inside?<<
As Mike said, those who saw the breakup inside the ship did not live to tell about it. However, Baker Joughin claimed (BI 6040):
- I went to the deck pantry, and while I was in there I thought I would take a drink of water, and while I was getting the drink of water I heard a kind of a crash as if something had buckled, as if part of the ship had buckled, and then I heard a rush overhead.
This could easily have been the start of the ship breaking apart.
Mike - the Titanic Inquiry site appears to be just fine now.
Bill |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25433
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 12:43 am: | |
>>the Titanic Inquiry site appears to be just fine now.<<
Thanks Bill. I just checked it out. Probably cyber-gremlins at it again. It appears to be fine now.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Username: ryan_mckeefery
Post Number: 797
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 2:37 pm: | |
I thought I would take a drink of water
Did he not translate "Water" into Russian?
But not what I'm here for.
Has anyone noticed that in the break-up diagram in "Her Name, Titanic", Pellegrino Illustrated the two large cross-sections of double-bottom that were discovered in 2005?
I was just flicking through the book t'other day and 'twas there.
The worlds leading authority in bathtub experiments. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2326
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 3:48 pm: | |
It shows up in his Time Line of Descent HERE.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
breakup
US $474.60 1 Bid
