| Author |
Message |
    
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 746
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 - 9:04 pm: | 
|
In the final hour of Titanic's life, people later wrote having heard cracking and popping sounds....The break up had already begun, and it may have taken an hour until that final snap that tore the ship asunder.
Whe she broke, the area of the breakup litterally decintigrated- the hollow areas of the aft Grand Staircase and Reciprocating Engine room shaft and adjoing galleys and rooms tore apart,creating what would later become the 'debris field.'
I think its likly that the starboard shell plating held for a mement, then tore away from the adjoining decks, which is why the stern section pivoted around......
What I have long wondered is if Titanic's stern went under at 220, when did the ship break in two? Im guessing 216.....
And once waves closed over Titanic's stern, the bow section was still on its freefall to the sea floor. How long would it have taken to reach the bottom?
10 minutes?
Tarn Stephanos |
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 415
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 2:13 am: |
|
Terminal velocity for large irregularly-shaped objects in water is about 30 mph. Since the bow went nearly straight down (it's only a few hundred feet from the boilers, which did), it would traverse the 2½ mile vertical distance in almost exactly 5 minutes.
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 6114
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 5:26 am: |
|
Tarn, all I can say at this point is that the forces which tore the ship apart started practically from the time water started rushing in. When we studied the flooding patterns and the stesses they imposed on the structure at the Topeka event last year, we were quite honestly amazed that the bow didn't fall off.
Check out the uneven flooding patterns up forward, think of the stresses the weight of the water would have imposed and consider the consequences of the damage from running over the berg's ram and you'll see what I mean.
The Titanic was a very ruggedly built ship though...fortunately for those who survived. Had it been any other way, I would opine that they wouldn't have even managed to launch 18 out of twenty boats befor the ship went down.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 4:01 pm: |
|
There is no conclusive evidence, nor is there any reason to believe, that the Titanic broke in two before she sank. Although several witnesses later claimed that the ship had been severed and that her after-part had settled on the water, others, including Second Officer Lightoller, emphatically denied it. "It is utterly untrue," Lightoller told the British enquiry, "The ship did not and could not have broken in two." The second officer was definitely in a position to know: only feet away from the sinking ship, he watched her descent "keenly the whole time." In this, Lightoller's testimony was corroborated by Third Officer Pitman. He, too, denied that the after-part broke off, he was "barely 100 yards away," he testified, and kept his eyes upon her as she went down. There was no reason for the hull, which was subjected only to progressive flooding, to break in two.
Harland and Wolff Naval Architect Edward Wilding did not believe she broke in two. To the British enquiry in answer to question 20258, "Do you believe that happened" he said, "Not in the lease, I feel quite sure it did not happen"
Titanic impacted the ice, and sustained the fatal damage, in a position 13 miles west of the position of the wreck site discovered by the Dr. Ballard expedition. It is quite conceivable that she drifted, underwater, for considerable time before coming to rest on the ocean floor. |
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 416
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 8:34 pm: |
|
First of all, it was pitch dark, and the survivors' eyesight had not had a chance to become dark-adapted. Lightoller was a) a company man, and b) not in a good vantage point to see anything that was happening to the blunt end of the ship at all. I just don't believe him.
Unless there are some extraordinary currents below the surface, Titanic couldn't have hit the bottom very far from where she left the surface. Any residual air inside would have been compressed to zero buoyancy before she got a hundred feet down, at which time she would have gone down like a curling stone. In the five minutes it took to get to the bottom, a two-knot current would have carried her 1/6 of a nautical mile.
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 508
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 9, 2003 - 1:09 am: |
|
I'd like to point out that quite a few more than "several witnesses" claimed the ship broke in half.
Just looking at some numbers I cranked out a while back for part of the US Inquiry, I have 8 people who said the ship broke apart (Olliver, Osman, Moore, Buley, Crowe, Evans, Bright and White). Only 3 claimed she sank intact - Lightoller (who was trying to survive when the supposed breakup occured), Pitman and Hugh Woolner. 34 people either were not asked whether she broke up, or when asked, did not know if she broke apart.
And this says nothing about all the news reports of survivors who mentioned a break-up. Gut level, I think well over 1/2 of the accounts I've read mention a breakup.
I don't doubt for a minute the Titanic broke up on the surface, or very close to it. |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 9, 2003 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Tom Pappas-Unless there are some extraordinary currents below the surface, Titanic couldn't have hit the bottom very far from where she left the surface.
What explanation do you offer for the 13 miles difference between the CQD position 41° 46'N, 50° 14'W and wreck site position 41° 44'N, 49° 57'W ?
--Collins |
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 420
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Hi Cap'n Duke -
Titanic had been influenced by a 2-knot ESE current (both under power and dead in the water) for the 7 hours from the evening star sight to the moment she encountered the bottom. Two knots times seven hours yields - - class? Anyone?
The CQD position was affected by about four hours of this current, and the rest of the distance was traversed between the collision and the sinking.
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 39
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Hi Tom, It doesn't work that way. Please read my ET article: Navigational Confirmation of Titanic's CQD Position.
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/position_collins.pdf
Regards,
Collins |
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 749
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Proof of the breakup for me was the fact the stern settled back, nearly to an even keel position, albiet with a heavy list to port-
Had the bow section remained attached, I dont see how that would have been physically possible...
There are enough witnesses who saw the ship break in half, and the fact she is indeed broken in two suggests thats the proof in the pudding..
Plus the deafening roar people heard moments before then end certainly wasnt the sound of the boilers ripping from their beds- the boilers in boiler room # 2 are still visibly in place..
More likely, it was the sound of the break up.
Plus the distance between the bow and stern sections and the debris field in between implies she broke apart at, or very near to the surface..
Tarn Stephanos |
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 421
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 3:00 am: |
|
Yo, Duke!
I read your article when it was first published, and then again before I wrote this morning. I do not find any explanation in it for the 13-mile difference in CQD and wreck positions with which your discussion begins. To me, the demonstration doesn't acquit Boxhall because (speaking as an armchair navigator) it fails to address the central issue.
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Tom, You now need to read the Chapter, Titanic:Lost and Found-- from my book, The Sinking of the Titanic: An Ice-Pilots Perspective.
http://www.breakwater.nf.net/nonfiction/thesinkingofthetitanic.html
And, get yourself away from the armchair.
Regards,
Collins |
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 422
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 3:47 pm: |
|
I'll wait until it hits the "left overs" counter. Why don't you give me a quick synopsis right now?
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 41
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 5:20 pm: |
|
It would not help my sales. But you are true to your listed Occupation: Swindler |
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 423
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 12:26 am: |
|
If Boxhall's computations are, as you so rigorously demonstrate, correct, then what mechanism accounts for Titanic's present position?
Your E-T article does not once mention the word "current." Mr. Boxhall's recollection of the ship's course and distance covered does not once mention the word "current." Your response to my question does not once mention the word "current."
TRUE: If you plot Titanic's track for four hours, dead reckoning on course 266º from Mr. Boxhall's recollection of the evening sight, you arrive at the CQD position at (about) 11:30. But if you factor in a two-knot current on the starboard bow, the ship encounters the ice(berg) eight miles east, and a little south, of the location broadcast by Phillips. In the next (nearly) three hours, the ship drifted six miles from where the encounter took place. That places the wreckage 13 miles from the CQD position, which was, after all the computation, incorrect. Arithmetic, however precise, doesn't yield correct answers if the methodology is flawed.
If you require any further elaboration, you will have to purchase my book.
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 6117
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 2:55 am: |
|
Okay, peeking into this thread after the tech gathering in Toledo, I've noticed a few personal attacks. Speaking as a moderator, I would admonish one and all to attack the points and not the person. This is potentially an interesting and informative thread. Let's do away with the ad hominums please.
Thank you all for your co-operation.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 6118
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 3:00 am: |
|
Addemdum: Regarding evidence of the ship breaking up on the surface, one can read numerous eyewitness accounts entered into evidence on Day 8 of the American Inquiry
Anyone interested will have to keep their own counsel on whether or not some of it can be trusted, but it's there.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Allan Clarke
Member
Username: allan
Post Number: 86
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Hi Tarn,
I was interested in your comment about the distance between the bow and stern of the wreck and the debris field indicating the ship broke up on or near the surface. I would have thought the wreckage would have been scattered over a much wider area than the wreck site shows if a surface breakup occurred. I also would have expected a lot more debris on the surface itself. However, Captian Rostron and, I believe, Captain Lord saw very little wreckage while searching the area for survivors.
My inclination is to believe Lightoller, Pitman, Beesley and Wilde and side with the view that she went down in one piece. The breakup was the result of the compartments imploding as she sank deeper. That is what I thought would have accounted for what is a relatively compact depris field given a two and a half mile plunge. Nonetheless, I am no expert on this subject. Perhaps you are right. Did you have some way of determining the wreck site reflecting a break up on or near the surface?
Regards,
Allan |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 6124
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:44 pm: |
|
>>I also would have expected a lot more debris on the surface itself. <<
Hmmmmm...why? Most of the debris would have been metal and that just doesn't float. No matter where the ship broke up, all of this would have sunk no matter what. Breakups on the surface do not neccesserily leave a lot of debris either. The Derbyshire is an example of a ship that would have disintigrated at or very near the surface and the only trace left was an oil slick.
And how do we really know how much debris was left over. The ships that came on the scene in the morning were interested in finding survivors, not searching for debris. By the time anyone else came in the area to search for bodies, anything that could float had long since been dispersed by the currents, wind and wave.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 425
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 3:34 am: |
|
Allan - the survivors rowed for almost three hours away from the site of the sinking (and the floating victims they had left to die). I know of no strenuous search beyond the immediate area of the recovery that morning, so the amount of debris released in the breakup is moot.
The breakup resulted from the failure of the hull girder when its yield strength was exceeded. More exotic explanations that that simple fact are unnecessary.
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
|
Don Tweed
Member
Username: smokestack
Post Number: 471
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 3:31 am: |
|
It is so easy to tear down, and hard to build up.
Heard that somewhere?
Tom said,"and the floating victims they had left to die."
How pompus. I know I will be dragged over the coals for this statement, but I hate negativity and the blunt force of a statement that puts an end to a topic.
Unnecessary? Says who? I will not reply further.
I am not some brain or expert on our favorite subject. This forum is for newcomers and well informed members alike.
Said my peace, sorry if I offend.
-Don |
Chelle Carson
Member
Username: shell
Post Number: 1
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:19 am: |
|
What? They rowed back and picked up the victims? There were boats that had capacity to spare. No sympathy for the Duff Gordons. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 6189
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 3:32 am: |
|
Chelle, you might want to aquaint yourself with the facts of what happened in Lifeboat#1 befor making any sweeping judgements like that.
You may also want to take note of what's said in Sir Cosmo Edmund Duff-Gordon's Bio.
quote:After the sinking Leading Fireman Charles Hendrickson asked those in the lifeboat whether they ought to go back to help the people swimming in the water but Lady Duff-Gordon warned they might be swamped by people trying to get on board.
Lady Duff-Gordon's concern was entirely valid. They may have had capacity to spare but not enough to accomadate 1500 swimmers who are fighting for their lives. Being swamped was a very real risk in this situation, and most all of the other boats held back as well for exactly this reason.
The sad fact is that the sea can and does force cruel choices on people, and as often as not, the choice one has to make is done knowing that no matter what you do, people are going to die. The question one has to answer then is this; Which course produces the fewest corpses?
As difficult as it is for us to grasp 91 years later, the boats did the right thing in holding back.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Rena Murray
Member
Username: pawpersuasion
Post Number: 6
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 1:41 am: |
|
The exact time was 218 AM
source
http://www.squidoo.com/Harland-and-Wolffs-Titanic/ |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 15225
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 5:12 am: |
|
Rena, you might want to try primary sources (Which are about as good as you can get even if they don't always quite agree. At least you know what was actually claimed.) squidoo.com is hardly definative on anything, and has errors from the very start.
Example: "The Titanic sank in Canadian waters"
She didn't. She sank in international waters.
Another example: "Instead the Titanic hit an underwater Iceberg spur that caused a 300 ft gash along the Starboard side."
There is no gash. There are a number of small deformations and splits which amounted to between 9 to 12 square feet of hull area in open communication with the sea. Sidescan sonar imaging carried out by Polaris imaging have shown that there is no gash.
I could go on about other errors (The Coast Gaurd for example came into existance long before the Titanic did) but I trust you get the point.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
N. James Wright
Member
Username: steatham_man
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Michael your right!
The site said "It was constructed with a double hull...".
The other statement was
"The unique qualities of the vessel deemed her unsinkable were very likely the contributing factors that resulted in her going down".
What that means I have no idea.
But the photos were very good, even the one of the Titanic's main staircase, which is very rare I have not seen that one before. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 15240
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 3:18 pm: |
|
>>"The unique qualities of the vessel deemed her unsinkable were very likely the contributing factors that resulted in her going down".
What that means I have no idea.<<
Very probably, the author didn't either. It's an interesting site, but it looks like it was put together as part of a junior high school project.
>>even the one of the Titanic's main staircase, which is very rare I have not seen that one before.<<
If you're talking about the photo in the slide show near the top of the page, I have. It's the Olympic's staircase and I've seen it in several publications.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 5:29 pm: |
|
As far as Titanic sites are concerned, this one by Karen Delac is a lot better than most. At least she is bold enough to list her sources:
Jim Sadur's R.M.S. Titanic History Timeline http://www.keyflux.com/titanic/timeline.htm
TITANIC - A Voyage of Discovery
http://www.keyflux.com/titanic/timeline.htm
RMS Titanic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
As an FYI, the 2:18 time was probably not too far off. It came directly from the Sadur site referenced above, and Sadur apparently assumed that the breakup happened 1 minute after the last unconfirmed wireless transmission that historically has been assumed to have come from Titanic (received 12:27 a.m. NY time by the Virginian) after adjusting for what the British Inquiry decided as the difference between Titanic time and NY time (1 hr and 50 min).
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
