| Author |
Message |
    
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 15224
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 5:02 am: | 
|
>>Titanic was split in two pieces not three.<<
Not exactly. You might want to check out sources which are more current and which are keeping up to date with the latest forensic information. What happened wasn't so much of a break as it was the two major sections parting company with each other as the midsection disintigrated. What you have here are two huge pieces, two or more large ones (The sections of double bottom and shell plating) and an uncountable number of small fragments.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stephen DeNicholas
Member
Username: steve_the_greek
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Hi all. I haven't posted here before, but the other day an interesting thought occured to me as i was tearing off some coupons made of cardboard. My thought was, picture the riveted hull plates as the perforation on a piece of cardboard. To tear it, you bend it one way, than another. What if, say, the breakup of Titanic was initiated as a direct result of Murdoch's attempts to avoid the iceberg. The ship was going full tilt when the berg was spotted, Murdoch orders full astern and hard-a-port. Now, as far as I know, the engines back then needed time to reverse gears, however, the ship would still be travelling quite fast when the props reversed. This would undoubtly put tremendous strain on the hull, then throwing the ship into a hard turn, then reversing direction to hard-a-port may, just may, result in the perforated cardboard effect, causing small cracks and deformities in the hull around the engines. In other words, the Titanic is at once moving forward, pulling backwards and going side to side. Along with the freezing water the hull was in to me, anyways, it's easy to see that the hull was under incredible stress, especially in the after parts. Once the stern cleared the water, it was easy to tear the coupon off. Any feedback, good or otherwise is welcomed.  |
Stephen DeNicholas
Member
Username: steve_the_greek
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:59 pm: |
|
sorry, in my post I meant hard-a-starboard first then hard-a-port. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 15467
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 4:01 pm: |
|
>>Murdoch orders full astern and hard-a-port.<<
Which may or may not have happened. The sequence of engine orders assumed to have been given on the bridge is not corroberated by survivors from the engine room.
>>This would undoubtly put tremendous strain on the hull, then throwing the ship into a hard turn, then reversing direction to hard-a-port may, just may, result in the perforated cardboard effect, causing small cracks and deformities in the hull around the engines.<<
Not really. Riveted hulls are not even remotely like the perforations on a piece of paper. Even at that, ship's hulls are designed to deal with far worse stresses then would be imposed either on the hull girder or the engine beds either by a crash stop or a hard turn. This would be especially true of any vessel on the North Atlantic run which have to be able to survive the worst storms the ocean can dish out.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 47
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Everyone assumes the hull parted fairly cleanly - more or less athwart-ship.
The strength members are the keel, garboard and sheer strakes.
Consider if these did not part or break uniformly but sequentially. Try this for size:
When the unsupported aft end is clear of the water, gravity imposes a bending moment in the way of expansion arrangement. The stern is heavily loaded and tries to lever the forward submerged part back to the horizontal. The keel and garboard strakes experience an incredible bending moment in the horizontal plane while the sheer strakes experience it in the vertical one. One sheer strake and associated attachments fails(with a 'bang')and very rapidly the stern is inundated. Immediately thereafter Both garboard strakes and the keel fail (two more 'bangs'), leaving the two sections of the hull attached on one side only. The rapidly inundating water reduces the bending moment. For a very short time the hull tries to return to an approximate as built form. At this point,the ship is held together by one sheer strake and associated attachments. The ship starts it's descent to the sea bed. Because of the this huge, irregular open wound and possibly a 'sag' at that point, material from both ends of the vessel start falling out. Very shortly, the pressure of descent (not water pressure itself - causes the 'wound' to ever increasingly open out. The bow section bends one way and the stern the other - so much so that just before the remaining sheer strake and associated plating finally part - the bow and stern sections are facing in opposite directions. The final parting is violent and the two main sections drift apart. At the same time, part of the cellular DBs becomes almost completely detached and finally parts at impact with the sea bed. I've never seen the wreck but can envisage this as a reasonable explanation. |
N. James Wright
Member
Username: steatham_man
Post Number: 103
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 9:08 pm: |
|
I greatly enjoy reading the posts, but find it very difficult to read them when there are no line breaks, or the post are not deliminated into paragraphs.
I just get lost somewhere down the body of the text and find it very difficult to follow it.
This is not mean't to be critical.
Best regards James. |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 49
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 11:51 am: |
|
Desculpe! (Sorry). I see what you mean.
A very valid point.
No offence taken.
I got completely carried away with the genius of my thought processes. I promise not to do it again. Honest!
Regards,
Jim. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 3:37 pm: |
|
quote:I got completely carried away with the genius of my thought processes.
I'd say Jim you're having far too much fun with all of this.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 8:47 pm: |
|
quote:I've never seen the wreck but can envisage this as a reasonable explanation.
I suggest that you review the 2004 NOAA imagery; particularly, those images showing the torn ends of both port and starboard sheer strakes at the area of the break. It might help you to refine your scenario somewhat.
Parks |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 51
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 9:28 pm: |
|
Parks, Sam will probably be saying 'don't encourage the man' but thanks for your input.
Forgive my ignorance - I don't know what a 2004 NOAA imagery is.(but I can imagine it!).
In the scenario I describe I could well imagine what those members might look like having seen it before 'in the flesh' so to speak.
I would expect evidence of tear fractures consistent with bending moments in the vertical plane on one side and bending moments in the horizontal plane on the other.
I would say computer imagery in itself would not prove conclusive but combined with evidence of compression in the lower plate edge on one side and on the inner face of the plate on other would certainly get me excited. Additionally; elongated and specifically torn rivet holes would provide even more exciting clues.
Sam - how can anyone have too much fun? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 20834
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 12:08 am: |
|
>>I don't know what a 2004 NOAA imagery is.(<<
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the reference is to wreck photos taken in 2004. Their homepage is at http://www.noaa.gov/
I don't know if any of the photos Parks mentioned are available on their website but I did a search and found http://usasearch.gov/search?affiliate=noaa.gov&v%3Aproject=firstgov&query=Titanic&x=39&y=9
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
