|
| Author |
Message |
    
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2461
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 4:28 pm: | 
|
Thank you Jim for that explanation of the riddle I posed. From what you said, if I understand it correctly, the the next day for the log book starts at 8 bells at the end of the First Watch. Midnight for the crew.
By the way, the same type of time ambiguity can happen today with the summertime business (called daylight savings time here in the states). In the fall clocks are set back an hour officially at 2 a.m. on a Sunday morning. If some accident happens say at 1:30 a.m., how is that time recorded?
Of course 1:30 a.m. comes twice that day, a half hour before clocks are set back, and a half hour after they are set back. Most people don't ever think of it because they adjust their clocks before going bed and never have to even think about it. However, in this case the reporting time ambiguity is easy to avoid. The person recording the time of the accident just appends it with a reference to the time-zone time being kept when it happened. So for here on the east coast of the US, if that accident happened at 1:30 after the 2 a.m. adjustment had officially taken place, then it would be recorded as 01:30 EST. If it happened at 1:30 before the 2 a.m. adjustment took place, then it would be recorded as 01:30 EDT. Ambiguity solved.
The good news, nothing bad can happen at 02:30 on the day that clocks are adjusted ahead in the spring. That times never officially comes. 
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2462
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 4:44 pm: |
|
While on this time change subject, we seem to always talk about changes going westward, but the same would apply to ship's heading eastward except clocks are put ahead, not back. Since clock adjustments are done at midnight and 4 a.m., the first adjustment to bridge time takes place when 8 bells are struck giving the oncoming watch, the Middle Watch, less than 4 hours of duty time. The next adjustment at would then be when 8 bells are struck again, giving those coming on for the Morning Watch less than 4 hours of duty time.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2175
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 5:22 pm: |
|
quote:Again, the bottom line here, is that the distance travelled and the speed of the ship (over ground or through the water) does not support the accident time that David Brown claims... he is forced to find one excuse after another in a very poor attempt to have us believe otherwise.
I am in complete agreement. I must admit that I have found so many of David's speculations extremely entertaining. However entertaining they might be, they are entirely unconvincing.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 384
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 12:15 pm: |
|
That's right Sam.
They used to use astronomical time and the day started at Noon. This caused no end of frustrating annoyance when working celestial sights since the Almanac was all in GMT after the Washington conference in ,I think, the mid 18 hundreds. The RN changed to civil time just after the Battle of Trafalgar but the MN were still using the old system up to and even after 1900.
In even earlier times; they would leave all the clock adjustment until arrival at their destination. This was complicated if they were circumnavigating the world since the meridians of longitude were numbered one to 360 -they did not reckon as we do now - 180 degrees east or west from the Greenwich Meridian (Prime vertical).
The last still causes headaches for historian trying to determine a particular date in history |
Monica Hall
Member
Username: monica
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Can anyone explain this in ordinary language? I realise you guys are fairly extraordinary in terms of brainpower, but you don't make it easy for the rest of us. Some people might like to understand. |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2268
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Log readings by quartermasters Hichens and Rowe have been cited to prove that the duration from noon to the accident was only 11 hours 40 minutes. These readings are claimed to refute my demonstrations that a 12 hours 3 minutes duration needed to match crew testimony regarding the relationship between the accident and the crew's midnight change of watch. Unfortunately, in order to make those claims it has been necessary to pre-judge those log readings and to force them to fit preconceived notions of what happened. This is the worst kind of academic mistake—forcing the data to fit a personal bias.
There can be no debate, however, that quartermaster Hichens said he took a 45 mile reading for the period from 8 to 10 p.m. And, quartermaster Rowe said the log showed exactly 260 miles when he read it immediately after the accident. The debate is not over what the men claimed, but over modern interpretations of those statements.
The Walker "Neptune" log did not indicate speed. It recorded distance by counting the revolutions of a "fish" or "spinner" attached to a length of line trailed astern. The torpedo-shaped spinner had fins which caused it to rotate when dragged through the water. Walker logs counted 900 revolutions of the spinner as one mile. (At 22 knots, that would be 19,800 revolutions per hour.)
High speed ships like Titanic used a Walker log that displayed three dials, each with a pointer like a hand on a clock. On read miles from 0 to 1 miles, a second zero to 100 miles, and a third 100s of miles to either 500 or 1,000 miles (depending upon model). Driven by internal gears, the pointer on the largest scale (zero to 100 miles) rotated clockwise, while the other dials rotated anti-clockwise.
Depending upon the desire of the navigator, the dials could be reset each day at noon. Or, the mileage count could be allowed to run from one day to the next. According to several testimonies, the choice in Titanic was to reset the log each day at noon.
Speed was determined indirectly by dividing the distance registered on the log by the time of the run. This meant that the speed obtained was not "instantaneous" like that shown on an automobile speedometer. Rather, it was an average speed for the duration of the run between readings.
It was policy in Titanic for the runner quartermaster to telephone his opposite number on the poop deck every two hours to obtain a log reading. This reading would have been the cumulative number on the dials of the log. After obtaining the number, the runner QM would record it in a log kept for the purpose. Later, the officers would do the appropriate subtraction to calculate the distance run. Later, the calculated distance could be used further to calculate the ship's average speed over that distance.
Time, speed, and distance are interrelated. If any two of the three are known, the fourth can be calculated:
Speed = Distance / Time
Time = Distance / Speed
Distance = Speed X Time
In Titanic, time was obtained ultimately from the chronometer which kept Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). This was used to obtain the ship's noon longitude each day. After that, ship's time was measured from noon to noon. Distance was measured by the log or buy the number of engine revolutions (hence the "slip table"). And, speed was always calculated from distance and time because there was no speedometer as such fitted in Titanic.
Log readings were cumulative for the day from noon. Subtraction made it possible to get the total distance run, or the distance between any intermediate times. Whichever distance was obtained in this manner would then be divided by the number of hours between the two readings to yield the average speed over that duration. The key concepts are that the log gave only distance run; that speed was obtained by a two-step series of calculations; and that the speed obtained was an average over time and not the ship's instantaneous speed at any given moment.
Quartermaster Hichens said that he obtained the ship's log reading at 10 p.m. "It is taken every two hours by the quartermaster when he got on the poop at the time," Hichens is recorded as telling the British inquiry. "The reading for the last day had been 45 miles." Then he added a curious statement, "I do not know the exact reading on the log, sir." (Questions #1379-81)
This odd statement prompted question #1383 from Mr. Laing, "And, in order to get what you said it was, 45 miles in two hours, you must make a calculation?"
The design and use of the Walker log presupposed the answer which Laing sought. The log reading was cumulative over the day's run. To have obtained the distance run for any two hour period of time would have required Hichens to "make a calculation" by subtracting the 8 p.m. reading from the 10 p.m. reading. But, Hichens denied doing so.
"No," Hichens testified, "We took it, you see. We used to take it, we quartermasters, but the speed the ship was traveling. We used to talk about it ourselves in our cabin."
The last part of Hichens' statement was undoubtedly true. The quartermasters bunked together, giving ample opportunity to discuss events of the voyage. However, the first part of Hichens' answer to question #1383 makes no sense. The quartermasters did get the log reading, but it was not for speed. To get speed required subtraction, which Hichens emphatically denied with the first word of his answer, "No."
In question #1384 Hichens again denied as he had in question #1381 knowing the reading on the log at 10 p.m. This prompted Laing's question #1385, "Unless you knew what it was at eight o'clock you could not make the calculation?" Hichens response confused the picture even more.
"We could only make the calculation by the run for the day," he said. Obviously he was right that the average speed for the "day" could be calculated by dividing the cumulative reading by the number of hours since noon. However, that was not the "only" calculation possible. Any even-numbered span of hours occurring within the span since noon could have just as easily been calculated on the assumption that one subtraction or division is no more difficult than another.
In theory, log readings were taken every two hours. If the ship followed nautical custom, this would have been at 4 bells and 8 bells of each watch. The 8 bell reading is predicated upon the normal practice of the on-duty watch finishing all work of their watch before turning the deck over to the relief. The probability this system was used is reinforced by Third Officer Pitman working up the ship's 8 p.m. dead reckoning before he turned over his responsibilities to Fourth Officer Boxhall.
Unfortunately, to Senator Smith during the U.S. inquiry Hichens gave two different times for what modern researchers call his
"10 p.m." log reading. Hichens told the senator that reading was actually taken, "At 9:45 o'clock p.m. Sunday." If that were the case, the run could have been a short 1 hour 45 minutes from the 8 p.m. reading. Dividing the 45 miles calculated from the log by that shorter duration yields an astonishing speed of 25.7 knots.
While it is virtually impossible for Titanic to have achieved more than 25 knots, it could well have been that Hichens' reading was done at a quarter to 4 and 8 bells. This would have given the officers some time to make any calculations necessary before the strike of the even hours. For example Pitman would have had those 15 minutes in which to do the 8 p.m. dead reckoning.
Hichens then added what seems more confusion by changing the o'clock time of the reading again, "The ship was traveling at that rate and going full speed when the log was taken at 10 o'clock." It is possible the 9:45 p.m. reading was spoken of around the bridge as the "10 o'clock reading." This reference was to a general collection of data every two hours that included the air and water temperatures as well as the log reading. All were gathered by the runner quartermaster who, being only one man, had to do the tasks sequentially. Apparently, they were all logged at 4 bells, which in Hichens reference would have been 10 p.m.
Modern historians mistakenly think that 1912 log readings were the equivalent of the split-second accuracy of today's electronic devices. That was hardly the case. In fact, log readings in Titanic's day were not even close to modern accuracy. Hichens' testimony of 9:45 or 10 p.m. for the reading illustrates the lack of precision in making these measurements.. This was of little concern. Any errors introduced were inconsequential to safe navigation. With a thousand miles to shore, there is little significance to a mile or two one way or the other. And, as we will discover, the navigating officers knew that log readings were never perfectly accurate anyway.
Although Hichens denied making any calculations, let us assume that he obviously did subtract the 8 p.m. from the 10 p.m. readings to get a run of 45 miles. Dividing by the assumed two hour duration produces an apparent 22.5 knots speed. But, Hichens also said that the 10 p.m. reading was done at 9:45, so he could also have claimed that impossible 25.7 knots.
We cannot resolve this ambiguity because even though we have a stenographer's transcript of what Hichens said, we still do not know exactly when he got that log reading. Even worse, we have no information about the actual time when the nominal 8 o'clock reading was made. So, while Hichens may have obtained a 45 mile recorded distance we have no way to compute a meaningful speed from that distance because we have not an inkling of the true duration over which Titanic steamed those miles. This uncertainty makes Hichens 45 mile reading useless in forensic navigation.
Consider how even a few minutes one way or the other in the duration of the run affects the speed. Six minutes are one-tenth of an hour or one-twentieth of a the nominal two hour span between 8 and 10 p.m. Even that small amount of time makes quite a difference in speed calculations:
45 miles / 1:54 = 23.68 knots
45 miles / 2:00 = 22.5 knots
45 miles / 2:06 = 21.4 knots
The wide-ranging speed differences from time changes amounting to only one-twentieth part of the overall duration illustrate why Hichens's 45 mile reading is quite useless for serious navigational forensics. It is nothing more than an artifact, a statement made by Hichens that while accurately recorded does not illuminate events.
Turning now to quartermaster Rowe, he claimed to have read exactly 260 miles on the log immediately after the iceberg slid past the docking bridge. Such a close encounter with another floating object should have caused Rowe to look first to the "spinner" to make sure the line had not been cut. It is quite curious in his testimony that he never mentioned even making a cursory check of the line.
At a speed of 22 knots there should have been about 60 fathoms (360 feet) of line between the log instrument on the taffrail and the spinner. The ship was turning to starboard according to Olliver, Scarrott and the agreement of Rowe. This meant that the long length of line would likely have been dragged into harm's way against the iceberg even though the spinner was streamed from the port side of the docking bridge. (This may explain why the line was apparently not cut.)
Rowe only said he took a reading from the log. A reading was required anytime the ship stopped because the navigators might need the distance to that point to calculate the ship's position. Rowe claimed the dials showed 260 miles since they had been reset at noon. If this distance is divided by the traditional 11 hours and 40 minutes duration from noon to the accident the result is 22.3 knots.
We now have to question why Boxhall insisted that he used only an even 22 knots for his dead reckoning. The answer may lie in the fact that Boxhall alone of the officers claimed the accident took place at 11:46 o'clock. In question #15639 of the British inquiry he explained how he worked out his CQD coordinates, "...I allowed a course and distance which gave the position. I worked it out for 11:46 as a matter of fact."
In that duration from noon over a 260 mile run, Titanic would have averaged 22.09 knots—effectively the 22 knot speed Boxhall claimed. The possibility that the 260 mile log reading was obtained by figuring backwards from Boxhall's 11:46 time and 22 knot speed cannot be disregarded.
11:46 X 22 kts = 259 miles.
If Titanic had been making the 22.28 knots or so that Sam Halpern's work with the slip table suggests, the log reading taken by Rowe should have been 262 miles. While 2 miles is not much of an error (as will be seen) an experienced quartermaster could not have overlooked them. The pointer of the 0 to 10 dial would clearly have been angled 72º to the left of the 0 mark. And, the pointer of the 0 to 100 dial would clearly have pointed two hash marks to the left of the "60" on the dial. Even in the semi-darkness of the docking bridge Rowe would not have mistaken 262 for 260 miles.
Crew testimonies about the accident coming 20 minutes before the midnight change of watch leave no doubt that the real time from noon to the accident was 12 hours 3 minutes. Dividing 260 miles by this longer duration seems to yield too slow a speed of only 21.6 knots. Over that duration at Boxhall's 22 knots Titanic should have made 264 miles which is 1.5% greater than the 260 miles Rowe read off the log's dials. Such a small difference is within the margin of error of error for taffrail logs like the Walker "Neptune" fitted in Titanic. Bowditch pointed out:
"...Though not a perfect instrument, the taffrail log affords a means of determining the vessel's speed through the water. It will usually be found that the indications of the log are in error by a constant percentage..." (Bowditch, 1926 ed.)
The expected errors in logs like the Walker instrument were the motivation behind using engine revolutions in steamships for measuring distance. This latter method proved more reliable and ultimately led to the diminished importance of trailed logs on power-driven vessels. In 1912 Walker logs were still the only means for sailing vessels to obtain distance information.
Walker logs were not dead-nuts accurate. Each combination of log, line, and spinner produced different error rates. A bent fin on the spinner would cause it to rotate too fast or two slowly. The light rope would stretch and twist, changing the transmission of rotation from the spinner to the log dials. Even the failure to oil the log twice a day could change its accuracy. And, currents and/or sea conditions were also factors. For all these reasons an error rate of under two percent was within the expected norm for a patent log trailed astern.
Close examination of Rowe's 260 mile reading opens two possibilities for how the data in the official transcripts were created. The first is that the Rowe log reading may have been created ex post facto based on Boxhall's 11:46 time of the accident and his 22 knot speed. Alternatively, and more likely, Boxhall probably used Rowe's 260 mile reading to work backwards to a clock time of 11:46 p.m.
As early as the morning of the sinking Boxhall had access to Carpathia's navigation. He knew the error in his CQD coordinates. Presumably, he would have been astute enough to understand the reason for that error—using the wrong "midnight." It would have been a simple matter to do a couple of calculations based on Rowe's 260 mile distance reading to obtain a speed/time combination that would place the accident at near enough in time to the public expectation of 11:40 p.m. April 14th to be believable. The problem is that none of the other members of the bridge team used 11:46 as the time of the accident. They uniformly supported the traditional 11:40 o'clock.
However, accepting the 260 mile reading as correct, it still falls within the expected error range for a duration of 12 hours 3 minutes. This duration produces a distance only 4 miles or 1.5% farther than Rowe's reading, an error within what Bowditch cautions mariners to accept. We can only conclude that the log readings simply do not prove conclusively the time of the accident. Within the error limits of the Walker "Neptune" long, Rowe's 260 mile reading equally supports an accident time of 11:40, 11:46, or 12:03 o'clock.
-- David G. Brown |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 385
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Sam and David,
I first must apologise to Boxhall. He may in fact, have worked the first CQD properly.
Titanic had been stopped since shortly after impact. Boxhall would not be reading any ship's clocks to work out his CQDs. All he needed was a fix reference point and a time for the ship coming to a halt (11:46pm). That information was in his work book and the QMs log - he did not need to consult a clock at all. It follows that my previous post concerning this was rubbish to say the least!
The difference in Longitude between Boxhall's first CQD and that of the wreck site is 27 minutes of arc. This equals 20 miles on a course of 266T. 20 miles at a speed of 22 knots takes just over 54 minutes (the time error). Such an error of + 20 miles in the 7:30pm fix Boxhall used to calculate his first CQD,would explain how he arrived at 50-24'West.
There is evidence to support this fix error somewhere. The ship seemed to be 20 miles ahead at some time during the evening of the 14th. Unfortunately I can't find it.
Lightholler seems also to have fallen foul of that error when he estimated the time they would be up to the ice.
If Boxhall worked his first CQD using ship's speed of 22 knots from the erroneous position, the time of impact had to be 11-40pm. Because the time error can easily be explained and removed. So why did he amend his first CQD Longitude by 10 minutes of arc? In terms of time this is about 20 minutes and in distance 7.3 miles. It does not fit with any planned clock change amount.
There is a curious aside in this tail in that the prime meridian of Greenwhich was not universal. Some people used the meridian of Paris which coincidentally and according to Boxhall was 54 minutes different from Greenwhich. Or was it a coincidence? |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 386
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Sorry Monica!
Actually, speaking for myself; I am no more 'brainy'than the next person. Just so happens this is my specialty having earned my living from the sea for many more years than I care to remember. I'm sure I couldn't do your work without training nor that of anyone else for that matter. But please - if there is some part of this jargon you don't understand - ask me and I'll try and answer in lay-person's terms (if I can).
Meanwhile, I'll shiver- me- timbers, swing the lead and skive-of for a tab-nab. |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 387
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 6:40 pm: |
|
David,
Walker logs also had dials that gave tenths or decimal points of a knot. The log readings were entered every two hours in a special column in the log book so it would be very easy to do a quick mental sum to get an idea of speed.
Any QM who read a log before the hour would get his thingies in a sling - believe me. Such information is totally useless to a navigator.
As a former navigator, I have to point out to you that trailing logs were used well into the 60's and 70's. Contrary to your observation logs were never used to determine speed - just to find distance travelled and perhaps estimate speed. The slip was never the same in any watch. Too many external influences. Titanics distance by propeller revs. and by log would be very close at that time but thereafter, as the ship got older, the bottom got dirtier etc. the accuracy would get less.
What you omit to observe is that the log of Titanic had a first class check in that the position of the wreck is known accurately as is the position of The Corner. Thus distances could be checked with certainty. In this case, the log accuracy can be checked by fixes.
What I don't understand is; why you choose Hichin to make your case about time? That man states numerous time throughout his testimony that -quote: "Murdoch told the junior officer to make a note of it (time of impact)in the log book" and "that was 20 minutes of 12 sir" and later "perkis relieved me" and "23 minutes after 12 - when he relieved me it was my watch below". |
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Jim,
It’s always useful to have your input. Yours is a ‘common sense’ point. After all, if the log readings were not taken at the same two hour interval then it was not possible to make comparisons. And, like for like data was a necessity.
I would hope that David might respond to your final query.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2177
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 7:21 pm: |
|
David wrote:
quote:Log readings by quartermasters Hichens and Rowe have been cited to prove that the duration from noon to the accident was only 11 hours 40 minutes. These readings are claimed to refute my demonstrations that a 12 hours 3 minutes duration needed to match crew testimony regarding the relationship between the accident and the crew's midnight change of watch.
The log readings are merely one aspect of many. It is telling that you have not addressed a number of the many points that Sam, Jim and I have raised; either on this forum or in published work.
We are fortunate to have the enquiry transcripts available online thanks to the dedicated teamwork of all of the volunteers of the Titanic Inquiry Project. It is possible for interested readers to examine many of the statements in detail and see the specific context in which they were made. It is unfortunate for anyone trying to manipulate the evidence so that it supports their own otherwise unsupportable theories.
quote:This is the worst kind of academic mistake—forcing the data to fit a personal bias.
I am in complete agreement. It raises the question as to why you continue to do precisely this in your own work – so consistently. Until you address this serious deficiency then your work will continue to suffer. Other researchers take the opposite approach: examining all of the evidence and trying to find where it leads; rather than your approach of jumping to a conclusion and then selectively distorting the evidence so that it appears to support your own preconceptions.
quote:Modern historians mistakenly think that 1912 log readings were the equivalent of the split-second accuracy of today's electronic devices.
Perhaps you might be so kind as to cite these ‘modern historians’ and the specific claim(s) that ‘1912 log readings were the equivalent of the split-second accuracy [my emphasis] of today’s electronic devices’?
As for Sam and I, we have certainly not made that mistake – despite your false claims and implications to the contrary, both in your past published work and here on the ET forum. For example, I described the log reading as merely a ‘rough indicator’ as far back as 2001 – eight years ago – and my description was published back in 2004. As is so often the case, you are willing to make claims that are either highly misleading or demonstrably false.
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Mark Chirnside
Member
Username: mark
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Monica,
I'm very much in agreement with Jim's kind offer. We all have our different interests (some would say obsessions!) and it can be difficult to follow some of the threads at times. Certainly, the time issue can appear very complicated; I would have equal difficulty in any threads relating to 1912 fashion! 
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside.
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 388
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Monica,
This is for you and the other long-suferers! No doubt someone else has done this. Forgive me in advance if I sound patronising - it is not meant.
I will assume readers are familiar with the Longitude system and that nowadays Longitude is measured in geometric degrees, minutes and seconds from a start point which is the longitude of Greenwich in England.
These units of measurement can easily be converted to hours minutes and seconds of time.
Since the circumference of the earth amounts to 360 degrees and the earth turns once in 24 hours; by simple arithmetic, 15 degrees of longitude is equal to one hour of time. The conversion is rather simple:
Longitude in minutes times 4 divided by 60 = equivalent in hours and minutes.
Time times 60 divided by 4 = equivalent in degrees and minutes of longitude.
On Titanic like other ships, clocks were either set back or put forward depending in the direction the ship was travelling. Forward if going east and back if going west. New York was five hours behind the UK so Titanic had to set her clocks back that amount so as to arrive in New York at local time. This was very important since people were to be met and specific arrangements had to be made. it follow that if The White Star company was to run to a timetable, everyone involved had to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
The navigators of Titanic; same as those on all other ships then and since, set back their clocks by the appropriate amount every 24 hours. The amount depended on how many lines of longitude the ship crossed in those 24 hours. The maximum amount would be when the ship was travelling east or west since she would cross the lines at right angles. It follows that the greater the angle the ship made with the lines of longitude - the less of them she crossed in 24 hours. Indeed, she would not do anything to her clocks if she were sailing due north or south.
In Titanic's case, her navigators had calculated that she would cross 11 degrees, 45 minutes of Longitude. How do I know this? simple! We are told they were going to put the clocks back 47 minutes between noon on April 14 and noon the following day. Using the simple calculation above: 47 x 60 divided by 4 = 11.75 degrees!
Now Titanic had two separate groups to notify as to ship's time- the crew and the passengers.
The passengers were all asleep during the night so a single clock change of 47 minutes made at midnight would satisfy their needs.
The crew however worked shifts (Watches). It has never been acceptable for one Watch to bear the whole of a clock alteration - particularly on a fast ship which crossed many lines of longitude in an hour. In Titanic's case she crossed a whole degree in two hours. Consequently the 47 minute time change would be split between the watch ending at midnight and the following watch which would end at 4 am.
This first division of time is the one under dispute. One camp says the clock was changed before midnight and the other that since the accident happened before midnight, the clock was never changed.
The discussion is further complicated in that those watch-keepers who were due to come on at midnight frequently adjusted their personal time pieces before going to bed so that when they were awakened their clocks would show the new adjusted Watch time. If they did not have such a time piece, they had to rely on the person calling them to have the proper adjusted time. That particular person would have a particular signal which would tell him the proper watch-keeping time - not a clock but a bell. No matter what was done to the clocks, one bell would be sounded as a warning to those awake-but more particularly to the person calling the next watch- that there were fifteen minutes left before the change of Watches.
In the case of Titanic the following is the sequence believed by one party:
Seven bells are sounded time:View Image
Lookout sounds three bells. In less than a minute Titanic hits the ice. Time:View Image
Titanic finally comes to a halt. Time:View Image
Titanic sends out her first CQD. Time:View Image
12 to 4 watch turns out on deck and QM Hichin is relieved at the wheel. Time:View Image.
The other camp believes that the ship's clocks were put back before the time of impact ie before midnight at around 10:00pm.
If this were so then the ship had travelled for an extra 24 minutes when the clock showed 10:00pm.
Basically, setting aside all the bull about clocks, longitude etc. It's down to ship's speed and time.
One group believes the ship sailed for 11 hours and 40 minutes before stopping for good and the other the same amount plus an extra 24 minutes. The real proof lies in the fact that if you use the same ship's speed for both times, Titanic would have sailed almost 9 miles further on from where the wreck lies before she sank. |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2269
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 8:18 pm: |
|
Some years ago I recall a discussion of clocks in the wheelhouse. At that time there seemed consensus that there were two. One was on the forward wall in view of the quartermaster at the wheel. The other was on the back wall of the wheelhouse near the telephones. If anyone has better information, please correct this.
We know from the IMM/White Star rules (Paragraph 116) that events were to be logged in two time references. One was Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and the other was ship's time. In British home waters those two times coincided. At sea they grew increasingly apart as the ship steamed westward. For this reason, April 14th time aboard Titanic was 2:58 behind GMT.
Company rules specified New York time (75th meridian) to be used only for logging points of arrival and departure from the United States, so is of no direct concern in this discussion.
A large part of the confusion in discussing time is that a.m. and p.m. o'clock hours were used in place of the 24-hour system now common ("military time" in the USA). Because of the ship's westward movement days were longer than 24 hours. April 14th was to be 24 hours plus 47 minutes. In o'clock time, those are 12:01, 12:02, etc. – duplicating the o'clock hours after the previous midnight which started April 14th. If the 24-hour clock is used, those extra minutes become 2401, 2402, etc. through 2447. Because of the obvious clarity of the 24-hour system, I'll use it here as necessary.
In developing my two-stage time change I have always been careful to characterize what I call "bridge time" as a fiction for the convenience of the crew. That is, it was never official ship's time. In my opinion, ship's time continued being measured from noon. Bridge time simply made it easier for the officers and crew to arrange their watch changes and continue keeping track of time with meaningful ship's bells.
This means that April 14th hours would have continued in use as ship's time until 2447 hrs which would have been the ship's one true midnight marking the start of April 15th date and time. Midnight, of course, always marks the start of a new day and is never part of the old day.
We know that each watch was to receive half of the extra 47 minutes. For this discussion we will consider "half" as 23 minutes. We also know from Lightoller that at midnight all clocks would be reset to April 15th hours which would have been based on the ship's predicted noon longitude. Based on these "givens," it is easy to see that the crew's "midnight" change of watch had to come at 2423 hours – halfway between 2400 and 2447 hrs in April 14th time.
Quartermaster Hichens confirmed this by stating he worked until 2423 hours, which he called "twelve twenty-three." Right there we have proof that crew "midnight" was 23 minutes after 12 o'clock. Hichens was relieved at crew "midnight" some four hours and 23 minutes after he came on duty at 8 o'clock (2000 hrs.).
We know from seaman Scarrott that the accident took place shortly after 7 bells which should have been the equivalent of shortly after 11:30 o'clock. Seaman Moore was off duty when, "Sunday night about a quarter to 12 ...there was suddenly a noise like a cable running out...About 10 minutes to 12 the boatswain came and piped all hands." (U.S. testimony all.)
Those stories were confirmed by seaman Osman who said, "I was waiting for one bell, which they strike, one bell, just before the quarter of the hour; before the four hours; when you get a call to relieve." Osman said he went on deck to see the iceberg after the collision and then returned below just in time for orders, "Then they passed the order that all seaman had to go up and clear away the boats."
Summed up, Scarrott, Osman, and Moore confirmed that the accident took place between 7 bells (11:30 o'clock) and quarter to the hour. This corresponds to a time of 11:40 o'clock. And, there is little doubt that the one bell warning was 15 minutes before the expected "midnight" change of watch for the crew. Finally, the order for all hands to the lifeboat came just before the port watch would have gone on duty at "midnight."
Previously, Hichens' testimony proved that the crew's midnight change of watch occurred at 2423 hours, or 12:23 o'clock using April 14th time. We now have two options: either Hichens worked 43 minutes after impact; or, Hichens worked the twenty minutes from impact to the crew's "midnight" change of watch and was properly relieved on time.
Anyone who wants to believe that about 40 minutes went past between impact and the all hands order to the boats is free to do so. However, the hard evidence is that only about 20 minutes ticked off between iceberg and when men started uncovering the lifeboats.
Going with the evidence, then, it becomes obvious that the 11:40 o'clock time of the accident was in the fictitious crew time as I have been suggesting. If we subtract the 20 minutes from 2423 hrs, we get 2403 hrs as the time of the accident in April 14th hours. So, 11:40 o'clock crew time is the same as 2403 hrs or 12:03 o'clock ship's time.
11:40 crew = 12:03 o'clock Ship Time
Where did the 11:40 o'clock time first surface. Apparently, it started immediately after the accident. Hichens was busy steering when Olliver entered the wheelhouse after watching the berg glide past. Hichens recalled that Sixth Officer Moody asked Olliver for the time.
A man entering the wheelhouse from the covered forebridge would naturally have been looking slightly aft because of the swing of the door. This would have put the back wall of the wheelhouse in his line of sight.
Now comes the reason for the request in the first paragraph of this post. To Olliver the important time was how long he had remaining on duty – crew time. My suspicion is that the clock in his line of sight was set to crew hours, not to ship's time. It said 11:40 o'clock, which he repeated to Moody.
The sixth officer had the duty of keeping the ship's scrap log. He would then transcribe that information into the smooth log for the Chief Officer and Captain. Moody would have been responsible for entering times in both GMT and ship's hours. It becomes a matter of conjecture as to what he would have written in the smooth log. I am of the opinion he would have added 23 minutes to the time given by Olliver to get April 14th ship's time, then added another 2 hours 58 minutes to get GMT.
11:40 Crew + 23 = 12:03 Ship = 0301 hrs GMT
The official ship's time of the accident should have been 12:03 o'clock, or 2403 April 14. That, along with 0301 GMT would have been entered in the log. The familiar 11:40 o'clock time isn't wrong, of course, just a misleading accident of history.
-- David G. Brown |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 389
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, April 20, 2009 - 9:31 pm: |
|
David,
The 24 hour clock system does not have a time of 2402 or 2403. It is 0002 0r 0003.
Ship's log books are laid-out and ruled for 24 hours. Clock changes are recorded as events within a date on the page that date refers to.
David, I have been trying to keep away from saying it but what you suggest about fictional crew times and all that is pure fantasy! The time a crew go on and off duty is by a clock. If they don't have a clock they certainly have a 15 minute bell (which was never sounded as you point out). Any clock they use does not give a clue if it has been set back or forward. The only way they would know that,is if they adjusted it themselves or someone did it for them. When the Titanic boys went on duty all the clocks they used would show 12 o'clock unless they had not been adjusted backward. The reason Hichin's time showed 12:23am or if you like 0023hrs was because the clock he was looking at had not been set back. As I implied in my post to Monica: forget trying to make clock times fit. Either you're right and the ship did steam 12 hours and 3 minutes at 22 knots from Noon or Ballard wrongly plotted the position of the wreck. If neither then Titanic had been stemming a a current of a knot and a half since 6:pm or 1800 hrs if you like. There's no record of that. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2464
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 4:01 am: |
|
>>Crew testimonies about the accident coming 20 minutes before the midnight change of watch leave no doubt that the real time from noon to the accident was 12 hours 3 minutes.<<
There are many references from crew and passengers alike that the accident time came about 20 minutes to 12, not 20 minutes before the expected change of watch for the crew. It certainly was just a few (10) minutes after 7 bells (11:30). But that does not make it 20 minute before the expected change of watch. The expected change of watch was about 43 minutes past the collision time. The process of uncovering the boats started about 20 minutes after the collision, the time when the clocks were to have been put back, not when the watch was going to change. That planned clock adjustment didn't happen. They something more important to do. Instead, all hands were called out at about that time to go to the boat deck and start uncovering the boats. Perkis, who came to relieve Hichens, did not get that order. He, like his mate QM Bright, were awakened and told that the ship had struck something, but they did not go on deck at that time. Perkis waited until he thought it was time to go to the wheel, and Bright apparently fell back to sleep because he was late in going out to the poop to relieve Rowe. As QM Rowe wrote in a letter to Ed Kamuda of the THS back in 1963, he was on the poop when the accident happened at 11:40 by his watch, and remained on the poop waiting to be relieved at 12:22 but his relief failed to show up. He, like Hichens, was obviously referring to unadjusted time.
In case you are wondering, the QM quarters were not in the forecastle with the other AB seamen.
Anyway, David quoted seaman Moore, but Moore did not make it clear what reference he was using when he said the accident happened about 20 to twelve. However, Boatswaine's mate Hainse makes it very clear that 20 minutes to 12 was without putting the clock back, period. David also quotes seaman Osman who was waiting for 1 bell outside the mess when the ship struck. Somehow he wants you to believe that one bell was going to be struck 5 minutes after the collision happened because of Osman's explanation of what one bell meant. Yet Osman said they strike one bell 15 minutes before the four hours is up, a generic explanation that doesn't really apply to the time he was on watch that night because that particular watch he was to have been given 4 hours and 23 minutes, not the usual 4 hours as we have been talking about. And David's reference to Scarrott only says the accident happened a few minutes after 11:30. But we all know that.
All the evidence when viewed together, crew times, passenger times, the over the ground distance run based on known positions, all of it, point to an accident happening about 11 hours and 40 minutes past noon. The log readings, especially that taken by Rowe, just happen to be extra supporting evidence that happens to come very close to the over the ground distance that depends only on the ship's noon location, the location of the corner, and the known location of the wreck site.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 390
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Here is the final time -check:
Passengers would read a personal time piece or a ship's clock in a public area.
The personal time-teller would have one or other times on it as would the clock in the public place. It follows that the time of the impact for passengers and those crew who were on duty in these places would be either 11:40 pm or 10:53 pm. If these time pieces were adjusted to show 15th April time they would have the full set-back on them. I do not recall anyone reporting the time of impact as 10:53pm.
Forget passenger evidence unless it was unadjusted clock time!
I don't know how many times I have to say this:
There is no way any member of the crew would know of a clock adjustment after it had been made unless someone told them it had been or they themselves actually adjusted the time-piece.
There is no evidence to prove the clocks had actually been changed but plenty to say they had not been.
as Sam reiterates: the hard, indisputable facts are:
1: Position of the wreck.
2: Noon position on the 14th. of April.
3: Distance of the wreck from the noon position.
4: Position of The Corner.
5: Time of turning on to the 266T.
6: Average Speed of Titanic since Noon.
7: Patent log reading at time of impact.
A first year Apprentice could work-out the time of impact from the fore going . However, with due consideration to Monica and the rest of you who are not Apprentices, this is how it is done:
Knowing (1) and (2) above it is easy for a trained person to calculate the distance between those two points. It turns out to be 259.1 miles.
The reading of (7) - 260 miles travelled since Noon on the 14th, is available thanks to QM Rowe.
There was less than a mile difference between the calculated and log distance ( 260 and 259.1) so the log was very accurate.
We know Boxhall used a ship's average speed over that time of 22.0 knots. To get the time travelled since Noon on the 14th, we divide the distance travelled -260 by the average speed - 22. This gives a time of impact of 11:49pm. However, we are told the time of impact was 11:40 pm. If we do the same calculation again and divide 260 by 11hrs 40 minutes, we now find the average speed was more than 22 knots in fact it's 22.4 knots.
If however, we use David's time of impact -23 minutes later, this means the ship travelled for 12 hours and 3 minutes since noon on the 14th.
Dividing the distance of 260 miles travelled since noon by 12hours 3 minutes gives a much slower average speed of 21,6 knots.
We know she was going faster than that and there is evidence from the same patent log reading that she was actually travelling closer to 22.5 knots at the time of impact. I won't go into detail but take my word for it; a late increase in speed would have increased the general average speed above Boxhall's 22 knots - the speed he used to calculate his CQDs.
It is a great pity that Boxhall did not adopt the more modern practice of using the log reading to determine the ship's position at time of impact. If he had done so, he would have carried-out the same sums we have just done and we would not be having this disagreement. He would have found that the point of impact was more or less at the position of the wreck site because there is no disputing how far Titanic had travelled before she sank. Consequently, it would not have taken modern under-sea explorers as long to find the wreck site.
At the beginning of this, I called it the final time check.
David, I have tried very hard to understand your reasoning. What you propose is feasible if there was proof. To the contrary; the evidence is just not there. You are suggesting things that just didn't happen at sea.
I have said this before to Sam and others: to get the full picture, you have to try and get inside the minds of seafarers. It is no good trying to hide behind the passing of time and changes in practices. Ask any sea-farer who was active throughout the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s and you will be told the same thing. The practices and behaviour you describe would be alien to them.
Seafarers are very conservative (with a small'C')people - particularly senior personnel. They hold on to old practices and expressions. Indeed the reluctance at the time of Titanic to change helm orders from tiller to wheel or the distrust of patent logs are classic examples of this.
I am extremely privileged and proud to be one of the last of those dinosaurs. There's so few of us left now - more's the pity! |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2465
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Nicely summarized Jim.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Not much left to say; nice summary. |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 2270
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 4:45 pm: |
|
You cannot twist the words of the crew. They said what was going to happen--the crew change of watch, which they called the "midnight change" was to occur within 20 minutes of the impact. That's the fact.
You cannot come up with any other change of watch schedule other than that the exchange was to take place at 2423 in April 14th hours. This is mandated by the requirement stated clearly by Lightoller (U.S. inquiry) that all clocks be on April 15th time at midnight -- "midnight" in horological and navigational definition would have been the start of April 15th.
Because both the starboard and port watches had to have completed their extra time by midnight, then the starboard watch must have worked extra from 2400 to 2423 and the port watch from 2423 to 2447 using April 14th hours (2447 would have been 0000 hrs April 15th). There is no other possibility. None.
What multiple members of the crew said is that the accident came at very nearly five minutes before the one bell warning to awaken the off-duty watch. That was scheduled for 15 minutes before change of watch, or 2423 - 15 = 2408. Five minutes earlier would have been 2403.
If you subtract the extra 23 minutes worked by the starboard watch that night, you come up with a familiar time: 2340 (11:40 in O'clock hours). The 11:40 o'clock time of the accident was what was being displayed on the crew clocks by which they were ringing the ship's bells and timing the change of watch.
To believe otherwise is to believe in rabbits with alarm clocks and walking through mirrors. The conventional story is simply wrong. It would have the 15 minute warning bell coming 38 minutes before change of watch. And, it would have the port watch coming on deck 23 minutes before the starboard watch went below. Madness.
The math proves it. The testimonies prove it. The 11:40 o'clock time of the accident was in artificial crew hours and not in April 14th ship's time. It is intellectual fraud to continue arguing otherwise.
More proof -- look at Rowe's testimony vis-a-vise the change of watch.
-------------
With regard to the navigation, there is no way to build an historically accurate picture of the ship's dead reckoning. We were denied too many of the needed details. Even Sam has had to use data from another ship (Olympic) to build his reconstructed navigation. His work is amazing and probably quite nearly accurate. Still, I can't navigate my boat by information from your boat. Neither can Sam or anyone develop an historically valid reconstruction of the Titanic's dead reckoning from a mish-mash of the available data and another ship's navigation.
To understand what the officers in were thinking that night, the best we can do is attempt a reconstruction using the numbers we have. Boxhall said he used 22 knots. And, if you divide out his distances it becomes apparent he did use 22 knots. The assumption is that he used 22 knots that night. But, that may not be true. In fact, his work seems more to be a reconstruction ex post facto that tells more about what Boxhall did preparing for his testimony than what he did on the bridge of the ship that night.
It was not accidental that the coordinates of the 7:30 p.m. star sights by Lightoller were "lost." If Boxhall had used them as often as he claimed, he would have had them at the front of his memory. But, he did not. Nor did anyone else have a clue as to that fix. Odd? No, obfuscation.
How fast was Titanic going at the time of the accident. Nobody knows for certain. Sam's work with the slip table is good, but it still lacks the hard edge of real data at the upper end of the rpm/speed scale. That said, Sam has convinced me that the ship was going more than 22 knots. I've said this on multiple occasions.
What is continually overlooked is that the real speed of the ship at the moment of the accident is unknown and unknowable. (Dividing the distance on the log by time only yields an average speed which could be more or less than the instantaneous speed at the moment of impact.)
The actual speed is also irrelevant when it comes to understand what Boxhall told the inquiries. Remember, he had plenty of time to reconstruct a plausible explanation of the ship's navigation while he rode Carpathia to New York.
As I said above, I believe Boxhall worked his magic around Rowe's alleged log reading. Also, I want to call attention again to the training that navigators of 1912 were given regarding the accuracy of patent logs like the Walker Neptune. Navigators were taught to expect a percentage of error in all log readings.
Rowe's log reading falls within that expected and unavoidable built-in error rate of the equipment. Rowe's log reading does not disprove my theory, but neither does it prove any other theories about the speed of the ship.
As I have shown above, those who believe that Hichens 45 mile reading was obtained exactly 120 minutes and zero seconds apart are only fooling themselves. The man himself testified under oath the time of the reading was 9:45 o'clock. Using that fact computes a 25.7 knot speed. That's the speed which must be quoted by anyone who uses Hichens' testimony on this matter--25.7 knots.
Presupposing an exact 2 hour duration between Hichens' two log readings is fraudulent history.
We all know that 27.5 knots was far in excess of what the ship was designed to achieve in service. Hichens' testimony only proves the vagaries of the system of obtaining readings, nothing more.
------------------------
We also have the two CQD coordinates to consider. They are 20 minutes of steaming apart. It does not take an Einstein to note that 11:40 is 20 minutes from 12:00 o'clock. Coincidence? Hardly.
We know it is not coincidence by looking at the longitude of the first set of CQD coordinates. They are for where the ship's predicted position at 0000 hrs. April 15th -- midnight in horological and navigational terms. Twenty minutes earlier would have been -0040, which translates to 11:40 o'clock, but in April 15th hours.
What time was -11:40 o'clock expressed in April 15th hours translated to April 14th time. To get that we add 47 minutes. The result is 12:27 o'clock April 14th, which seems unrelated to the accident. However, we have to recall that the crew clocks were set back by 23 minutes. Another subtraction of those 23 minutes yields a time of 12:04 (call it 12:03 with rounding for half of 47).
Boxhall's 11:40 CQD = 11:40 Crew = 12:03 Apr 14th
These CQD coordinates are facts based on hard data transmitted by Jack Phillips using Titanic's Marconi equipment and recorded by land stations and ships on the night of the sinking. The relationships are equally valid because they are worked from the CQD longitudes and published miles/degree tables from the historic period.
Accidental? Hardly. The only reason for discarding the evidence from the CQD coordinates is either self-deception or the intent to deceive others.
--------------------
I'm fighting this battle because I'm right and the 1,500 people who died in the tragedy at least deserve to have the truth published. As I have said, it has cost me reprinting of my book. I've paid a price (about half a year's income) for discovering the truth. It hurts to find errors in your own work. But, we are lairs to ourselves if we continue clinging to an obvious falsehood. And, we are liars to those 1,500 dead souls.
I've had to take my lumps. I'm asking the rest of the Titanic research community to "man up" and do the same.
-- David G. Brown |
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 393
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 9:31 pm: |
|
David, the crew said they were due on watch at midnight. 12 o'clock on a retarded clock. They did not know whether the clock was or was not retarded.
Since the clocks were not retarded at midnight, they would show as 12:23 no am. or pm.
When Lightholler referred to all clocks being on 15th April time at midnight - he was correct if the clocks had been retarded. But they were not!
David, I do not recognise what you are saying about port and starboard watches!
Really David! The impact would have come 15 minutes before 1 bell for the crew if the clocks had been retarded at midnight - how did that same crew know the clocks had in fact been retarded since they never heard one bell? Did they use the same mirrors you refer to? Perhaps the 'white rabbit' told them? Come to think of it - who told them the time of the accident? There own boss must have over-slept because he did not believe the clocks had been retarded - the Boatswain's Mate I mean! It was his job to see the relief crew arrived on time. If anyone was sure of anything about time it would be him.
The other's wouldn't give a toss!
There's no such thing as an 'accurate' DR. "Dead reckoning' is merely an educated guess based on available information. I don't know what you were taught or what you practice; but if a navigator has a fix as a starting point and another fix as a 'way-point', he then has a course and distance to that way-point. A departure course from that way-point and a final log reading at a final point, is all he needs to get a DR position of the final point - he doesn't need speed at all! It's too easy! If he can't actually calculate the final DR he has the lazy-man's Traverse table to do most of the work for him. I hope I am making my self clear - that final DR point would put Titanic at or near the known position of the wreck - 260 miles from the first fix - Noon on the 14th. Where's the mystery here?
As for Hichin's evidence - you really must read all of the evidence carefully. He told Senator smith that he Called Murdoch at one bell - quarter to 10pm. he also read the thermometer, barometer etc and the log then went on the wheel.
Think about it! He would ring one bell, leave the wheel house, go to Murdoch's cabin, call him - making sure he was awake then go back to the wheelhouse and 'take' all the readings he mentioned - including the log. He would not physically read the log - that was the job of Rowe who was stationed aft for that purpose among other things. Rowe would phone the bridge exactly at 10.pm with the reading and Hitchin or Olliver would enter it into the book along with all the other readings. You keep refering me to the company regs. That was the regs.- to read the log every 2 hours. Do you think for a moment that Moody or Boxhall would let the QMs get away with fudging the figures?
What Hichin's evidence clearly illustrates -to me anyway - is that Titanic watches were run like clockwork (forgive the pun). Stop looking for boogey men David!
Why on earth would navigators or Smith for that matter want to know the ship's position at midnight other than to record a DR at the end of a watch so as to hand over properly to the next OOW? Incidentally. The 20 minute difference you refer to was not a 'coincidence'; it was a perceived error in navigation by Boxhall -one of two such errors.
There is no such 'midnight' as you suggest. Midnight in the ship's log would be 24 hours from the previous 'midnight'. Indeed, if we are to believe you, the ship's log had it ever been written-up would show:
14th. April,1912..2400hrs: Passenger Clocks retarded 47 minutes to GMT+ 3 hours,47 minutes.
15th. April,1912..0023hrs: Bridge Clocks retarded 23 minutes' then 24 minutes later - Bridge Clocks retarded 24 minutes. Glad i never was OOW on that ship(apart from anything else!).
David, nobody disputes the recorded figures of both CQDs. Nor do they dispute the timings of them but you mus also remember that those times were recorded relative to New York time and Jack Phillips transmitted the first CQD which according to his assistant was some time between midnight and 0015 ship's time.
Before impact, Titanic was 2 hrs or thereabouts ahead of NY time. The first CQD was heard about 10:15 NY time. With no clock alteration that would be 0015 on board Titanic.
With the clock change you suggest it would have been about 1152pm 'crew time' on Titanic when the first message was sent.
Since the impact happened 35 minutes earlier, the time of impact would have been 11:17pm crew
time or 11:17 + 23 minutes = 11:40pm 14th. Time.
There's lies, damn lies and statistics! |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2472
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 5:18 am: |
|
Still sucking the marrow out. And just when I thought the bone was going dry.
OK, let's address a few points raised.
>>You cannot twist the words of the crew. They said what was going to happen--the crew change of watch, which they called the "midnight change" was to occur within 20 minutes of the impact. That's the fact. <<
Why don’t you just stop saying that and show us your so called facts.
>> This is mandated by the requirement stated clearly by Lightoller (U.S. inquiry) that all clocks be on April 15th time at midnight<<
First of all, where did Lightoller say ALL clocks had to be accurate at midnight? I thought he said clocks are set midnight so they will be accurate at noon the following day, the same as in brochures given to passengers. You should stop claiming he said something different from what he actually said, or trying to take his words out of context to impart a different meaning to them.
>>Because both the starboard and port watches had to have completed their extra time by midnight<<
Please show us where this comes from. It seems to me that it is a misinterpretation on your part of what Lightoller was trying to explain to Senator Smith. It certainly is not in any of the rules, and it is not how it was done according to someone here with the background and experience to know how it was done. Jim has told you that the first clock change for the crew on British merchant ships took place at 12 midnight (12 hours past noon) delaying the striking of 8 bells for those on deck, and then again 4 hours after the next watch came on deck delaying the striking of 8 bells by the same amount yet again.
You also talk about multiple members of the crew saying the accident took place 5 minutes before the one bell warning. I have yet to find a single one.
>>To believe otherwise is to believe in rabbits with alarm clocks and walking through mirrors. <<
These types of outbursts get you nowhere.
>>The math proves it. The testimonies prove it. <<
They do NOT. The math supports a duration of 11 hours and 40 minutes from noon to the accident. The testimonies that clearly support this you either ignore, essentially dismiss, or try to add creative interpretations to impart meaning that was never intended.
>>It is intellectual fraud to continue arguing otherwise. <<
This is not the first time you used those words. I would look very hard in a mirror David before accusing anyone of intellectual fraud.
>>There is no way to build an historically accurate picture of the ship's dead reckoning. <<
Nobody has claimed to do that. But what has been presented here by myself and Jim Currie is data that comes from known position locations. The over the ground distance from noon to the wreck site can be worked up without assuming anything about how fast the ship was going. The distance run by log just happened to closely agree with that distance. The speed falls out only when considering how much time it took the ship to travel that distance. And we have a previous day’s run to compare those results to.
>>The assumption is that he [Boxhall] used 22 knots that night. But, that may not be true. In fact, his work seems more to be a reconstruction ex post facto that tells more about what Boxhall did preparing for his testimony than what he did on the bridge of the ship that night.<<
The only reason I can think of as to why you are saying this sort of thing is because you cannot build a case around what he did say he did.
>>It was not accidental that the coordinates of the 7:30 p.m. star sights by Lightoller were "lost." <<
The 7:30 star sight coordinates were of no particular significance for anyone to remember them. The distress coordinates however, were.
>>What is continually overlooked is that the real speed of the ship at the moment of the accident is unknown and unknowable. (Dividing the distance on the log by time only yields an average speed which could be more or less than the instantaneous speed at the moment of impact.) <<
I agree. But the instantaneous speed at the moment of impact is not relevant to the question of time duration from noon to the accident. The average speed, however, is.
>> Rowe's alleged log reading. <<
A most interesting choice of words. I think the real issue with you about the Rowe’s log reading has nothing to do with the accuracy of the log itself, as it has with its agreeing so well with now known distance over ground that the ship travelled from its noon location to the wreck site location. The log reading in and of itself is not proof of the distance run, but it certainly supports that distance run which we now know.
>>The man himself testified under oath the time of the reading was 9:45 o'clock. <<
HICHENS: “I took the log which was part of my duty at half a minute to ten, as near as I can tell.”
It is about as clear as it gets.
>>Presupposing an exact 2 hour duration between Hichens' two log readings is fraudulent history. <<
I think fraudulent history is produced by people who claim something happened based on selective use of available data, the need to twist and reinterpret what people said in sworn testimony, or ignore evidence presented and suggest creative reasons why people said what they actually said.
>>The only reason for discarding the evidence from the CQD coordinates is either self-deception or the intent to deceive others. <<
Who is ignoring the two CQD coordinates? I published a paper about those two CQD positions which was also posted here on ET in two parts. (See It’s A CQD Old Man – Part 1 and It’s A CQD Old Man – Part 2.) The explanations presented there have nothing to do with projected midnight positions, undocumented course changes, or any clock setbacks that were due to take place later that night. It also does not assume anything about miscommunications between individuals, or the highly implausible suggestion that a knowingly wrong position report was deliberately sent out in an attempt to get ships turned around before a valid distress position could be worked up. So please don’t say that these CQD positions are being ignored. It is simply not true.
>>I'm fighting this battle because I'm right …<<
I believe that you believe that. I have no problem with that. But I do have problems when you use words like “intellectual fraud” to describe others who don’t see things your way, or try to show you where your theories fall apart.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
