Size of hole in starboard side............
| Author
| Message
|
    
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 38
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 6:58 pm: |       |
Personally I don't much value in Boxhall’s evidence regarding seeing the iceberg. I wouldn’t base any argument on what he says about it.
Regards,
Paul
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 7:31 pm: | |
Parks:
As a professional mariner, I know how blind one can be when exiting the lit interior of a ship to come out in the utter darkness of a weather deck on a moonless night.
You do not credit Boxhall with seeing anything because of his night vision. Yet, if I understand you corectly, you believe Scarrott to have seen an iceberg 800 feet away, just abaft, Titanic's starboard beam, immediatley after he rushed onto the starboard forward well deck from his lighted forecastle crew quarters.
Collins |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 75
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
Samuel:
{b{Contact ended because of some other factors probably involving the interaction of the ship with the submerged part of the berg,{ not because of any starboard turning that may have been taking place over the period time we are concerned with.
Interaction (Bernoulli effect) of a ship with the submerged part of an iceberg, will enhance contact.
Collins |
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 39
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
To be honest, I find it hard to believe that anybody would have seen the iceberg 800 feet away considering the conditions I described in my first posting on this thread. Black ice against a black sky and black water. I can not imagine anybody seeing it anywhere beyond where the lookouts first detected it.
Regards,
Paul
|
Inger Sheil
Moderator
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2345
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
Boxhall in later life was to repeat - again with emphasis - that he could never be sure he had seen the iceberg. He did mention a fine powdering of snow on the deck that looked as if it was shaved or ground off the berg. |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
Captain Collins,
I don't believe that I credited Scarrott with anything in this recent conversation. I merely quoted his testimony, along with Boxhall's and a few others. If I had more time, I would prove additional excerpts from other eyewitnesses, no matter what they claimed to see, all for the sake of comparison.
That said, Boxhall is the only witness I can recall who stated right up front that his eyes weren't adjusted to the darkness, but that didn't seem to make much of an impression on his inquisitors, either in the US or UK, who pressed him for answers, regardless.
If Scarrott had mentioned that he was night-blinded -- as Boxhall did -- I would have included that salient fact in my excerpts, too.
I do have one question for you, Captain...where do you find Scarrott saying that the berg was 800 feet away when he first saw it? All I can find him saying is:
"But how far away from your beam was the iceberg, a ship's length or two ships' length? - Not a ship's length."
Parks
http://marconigraph.com |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:57 pm: | |
I do have one question for you, Captain...where do you find Scarrott saying that the berg was 800 feet away when he first saw it
359. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Yes. (To the Witness.) You have told us that somewhere on your starboard beam, within a ship's length of you, was the iceberg. How high was the iceberg as compared with your vessel? - I should say about as high as the boat deck; it appeared to be that from the position of it.
Collins
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
Captain Collins, with all due respect: I read and understood your paper before my first posting, and my intention was to propose that your sequence of events is suspect, as it is based on one (not 100% reliable) man's testimony. The events assembled from the testimony of virtually everyone else are consistent with contacting an iceberg while in a turn to starboard.
If the bow made contact at the forepeak while in a turn to starboard, it would lose contact at the pivot point, and the iceberg would get farther and farther away from the beam as advance and transfer took effect. Since the turn would tend to accelerate before losing contact due to the leverage against a longer arm (the fulcrum being the moving contact point until it reached the CLR), the iceberg might well be one ship-length off the beam when Scarott saw it, and two by the time it passed Rowe, as the stern swung farther and farther to port. |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
My role in this conversation has taken on an irresistable-force-meets-an-immoveable-object character and I've got another History Channel programme to prepare for next week, so I'm going to take this opportunity to "depart the pattern." Thanks to the magic of automatic e-mail notification, I'll still be around if anyone needs to get hold of me.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 77
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 7:43 pm: | |
Alica, with all due respects, PLEASE enlighten me to The events assembled from the testimony of virtually everyone else are consistent with contacting an iceberg while in a turn to starboard.
|
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 41
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
Captain,
My impression from the evidence is this: Boxhall testified that the telegraphs indicated “full astern”, but Scott (Greaser in the engine room) only saw that the telegraphs showed stop. In this case it is one man’s word against the other. So we have to resort to science to sort it out for us. I agree with you that the rudder would have been useless if her engines had been ordered full astern, but she turned 2 points (22.5) degrees to port before she struck. How would this have been possible if she was ordered full astern? She would more than likely have carried straight on ahead with the stern water pressure being forced over her rudder.
You said this yourself in your article, “Titanic’s Final Maneuver”. (Not your exact words) “With the engines being stopped the turn rate would have been decreased”. What you don’t say is her speed would also have decreased in speed as well.
As long as she had enough headway on her, she would keep turning. But no matter how far she turned, she struck this iceberg with a glancing blow on her starboard side.
Now the evidence is very clear, and I am sure that you will agree that the Titanic struck the iceberg on her starboard side. Now it is only common sense that if Murdoch had kept a starboard helm (port rudder) he would have pushed the entire stern of the ship into the iceberg as well. How could he not have ported his helm (Starboard rudder) to get the stern of the ship away from the iceberg?
Paul
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 78
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:42 pm: | |
but she turned 2 points (22.5) degrees to port before she struck. How would this have been possible if she was ordered full astern?
If you peruse my article, Titanic's Final Manoeuvre, you will read the answer.
.. if she was ordered full astern? She would more than likely have carried straight on ahead with the stern water pressure being forced over her rudder.
Absolutely not, Momentum continued the turn to port.. Read my article again!
“With the engines being stopped... What you don’t say is her speed would also have decreased
Would that not be a foregone conclsion?
As long as she had enough headway on her, she would keep turning
Of course, turning to port!
But no matter how far she turned, she struck this iceberg with a glancing blow on her starboard side.
There was NO ICEBERG to strike a glancing blow, or otherwise.
Now the evidence is very clear, and I am sure that you will agree that the Titanic struck the iceberg on her starboard side
It is clear, there is no evidence, and I, most certainly, do not agree with you.
Now it is only common sense that if Murdoch had kept a starboard helm (port rudder) he would have pushed the entire stern of the ship into the iceberg as well.
Of course, if there had been an iceberg. That is the whole point, there was not an iceberg.
How could he not have ported his helm (Starboard rudder) to get the stern of the ship away from the iceberg?
First, he did not have the time to do so.
Second, it would have been useless to do so because he had stopped/reversed the engines.
Collins
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:14 am: | |
Captain Collins,
Let us accept, for the sake of discussion, your contention that the ship "transited a 'strip of heavy pack ice,' which in all probability was infested with multi-year ice and growlers." We will further stipulate that Murdoch ordered starboard helm, but was unable to complete a port-around because of diminished rudder effectiveness.
Fair enough. But I would be interested in knowing why, if the ship was still turning to port at the moment of impact, why the continuing counter-clockwise rotation of her hull would not have crushed the stern section deeper into the ice, causing damage abaft of Boiler Room #5 - probably all the way astern.
I would also like to see your explanation of why the crew testified that the ice got further from the ship as it passed astern. This would not happen in a port turn, but it would in turning to starboard. |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 79
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
We will further stipulate that Murdoch ordered starboard helm, but was unable to complete a port-around because of diminished rudder effectiveness.
Murdoch intended, but did not attempt a "port around" because,as he said, "she was too close I could not do anymore."
Fair enough. But I would be interested in knowing why, if the ship was still turning to port at the moment of impact, why the continuing counter-clockwise rotation of her hull would not have crushed the stern section deeper into the ice, causing damage abaft of Boiler Room #5 - probably all the way astern
Pack ice is a conglomerate of ice of different consistencies, run together by wind and/or tide. It is moveable by a ship when transiting and therefore there is very little interaction. When Titanic first entered the strip of pack ice she was doing so with a full speed of 22 knots with the rudder hard to port. This sudden shock put enormous preasure on the starboard entrance plates causing them to be ruptured. By the time of being in the pack ice about 200 feet, friction, along with the engines coming to STOP reduced the speed, thereby reducing the pressure on the hull plating.
This is fully explained in my booK:
http://www.breakwater.nf.net/nonfiction/thesinkingofthetitanic.html
I would also like to see your explanation of why the crew testified that the ice got further from the ship as it passed astern. This would not happen in a port turn, but it would in turning to starboard.
Where in the evidence did the crew testify the ice got further from the ship as it passed astern?
Collins |
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 42
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Now lets see...
We have Scarrott at the British inquiry:
351. Tell me what you saw. - When we came up, that was before the boatswain's call, we saw a large quantity of ice on the starboard side on the forewell deck, and I went and looked over the rail there and I saw an iceberg that I took it we had struck. It would be abaft the beam then - abaft the starboard beam.
352. Was it close to? - No, it seemed the ship was acting on her helm and we had swung clear of the iceberg.
353. But how far away from your beam was the iceberg, a ship's length or two ships' length? - Not a ship's length.
354. You speak of this ship as if answering her helm - as if answering under which helm? - Under the starboard helm - under the port helm.
355. Get it right? - Under port helm. Her stern was slewing off the iceberg. Her starboard quarter was going off the icebergs, and the starboard bow was going as if to make a circle round it.
Let’s also not forget about Oliver at the American Inquiry (day 7):
Senator BURTON. Do you know whether the wheel was hard aport then?
Mr. OLLIVER. What I know about the wheel - I was stand-by to run messages, but what I knew about the helm is, hard aport.
Senator BURTON. Do you mean hard aport or hard astarboard?
Mr. OLLIVER. I know the orders I heard when I was on the bridge was after we had struck the iceberg. I heard hard aport, and there was the man at the wheel and the officer. The officer was seeing it was carried out right.
Senator BURTON. What officer was it?
Mr. OLLIVER. Mr. Moody, the sixth officer, was stationed in the wheelhouse.
Senator BURTON. Who was the man at the wheel?
Mr. OLLIVER. Hichens, quartermaster.
Senator BURTON. You do not know whether the helm was put hard astarboard first, or not?
Mr. OLLIVER. No, sir; I do not know that.
Senator BURTON. But you know it was put hard aport after you got there?
Mr. OLLIVER. After I got there; yes, sir.
Paul
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Captain Collins -
Quoting your post of the 27th:
"Mr. ROWE. I felt a slight jar and looked at my watch. It was a fine night, and it was then 20 minutes to 12. I looked toward the starboard side of the ship and saw a mass of ice.. Roughly, 100 feet [away], sir."
and
"My comment: within about a minute after impact-the ship having gone forward about three ship lenghts - Scarrott's iceberg is off the starboard beam about a ship's lenght (890 feet)away."
So Rowe felt a slight jar and saw ice 100 feet away, and a minute later it was a ship-length off the beam. I take this as crew testimony that the ice got further from the ship as it passed astern.
-------------------------------------
The damage issue remains problematical. From bow to stern, its severity increased, culminating in Cargo Hold #3 and Boiler Room #6, yet it suddenly abated at Boiler Room #5. I cannot envision a port turning scenario in which the forces would work out this way. Even if the ship's forward motion were attenuated by the collision (which would undoubtedly have been noticed by anyone on his feet, but wasn't reported), the ship's turning inertia would still tend to drive the starboard further into the same ice that had just ruptured five compartments further forward. For this to occur without causing catastrophic damage strains credibility. |
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 44
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Just a quick question for you, Captain Collins,
I am going to assume for the purpose my question, your theory that the Titanic had struck pack ice. If the Titanic was in pack ice, would it not have been almost impossible, if not completely impossible to launch the boats? Assuming it was possible to lower the boats, surely it would have made the navigation of the boats Practically impossible?
Paul
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 10
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Paul,
We aren't going to get the good Captain to recant his theory. For him to do so just wouldn't be good for book sales. |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 82
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Alicia:
"Mr. ROWE. I felt a slight jar and looked at my watch. It was a fine night, and it was then 20 minutes to 12. I looked toward the starboard side of the ship and saw a mass of ice.. Roughly, 100 feet [away], sir."
Why are you rewriting my post?
So Rowe felt a slight jar and saw ice 100 feet away, and a minute later it was a ship-length off the beam. I take this as crew testimony that the ice got further from the ship as it passed astern.
In my book I state: "And ever since that time the misinterpretation of the evidence that was given at the courts of inquiry has perpetuated the myth that the Titanic collided with an iceberg.."
Maybe, if you perused the evidence you would not misintrepret.
"My comment: within about a minute after impact-the ship having gone forward about three ship lenghts - Scarrott's iceberg is off the starboard beam about a ship's lenght (890 feet)away."
Common sense and logic dictate that Scarrot could not,possibly, have seen an iceberg that Titanic collided with.
I cannot envision a port turning scenario in which the forces would work out this way...For this to occur without causing catastrophic damage strains credibility.
We aren't going to get the good Captain to recant his theory
The reputation of an expert is sometimes based on what he knows, but more often on what others don't know.
Collins
|
Dan Cherry
Member
Username: dcherry
Post Number: 469
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
I am afraid I've seen nothing in testimony or opinion that would convince me to accept the theory being postulated here, just like the recent theory that the Titanic and Olympic were switched in an insurance scam.
In general:
No one is impervious to making mistakes, or assembling a manuscript based on partial information (aka, the best information available at the time). I've 'been there, done that', too and make every effort to clarify or correct said grievances.
As an author myself of two historical books and a third in the works, it is essential to keep true as best as one can to what happened, keeping intact the testimony/writings of the primary sources and letting the story be the story.
Making up facts (or deleting them) to promote the validity of one's agenda is somethings I've seen in many books, sensationalized in an apparent motive to draw in the almighty dollar. History is a consensus-reality as it is; it is not necessary to water it down further, or beef it up further for that matter.
Presenting an historical account, in the preservation of said history, must adhere to the facts.
To do less is simply a disservice. |
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2356
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
As Moderator:
I have noticed that this thread is "heating up" a little. Let us all keep our tempers and have respect for each other, whether we agree with a point of view or theory or not. This is a place for open debate and arguments are bound to occur, but please keep it polite.
Thanks, and you may now continue with your regularly scheduled debate. 
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired) |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:03 pm: | |
Let’s also not forget about Oliver at the American Inquiry (day 7):
Let's not forget the important part of his evidence.
Senator BURTON. Where was the iceberg, do you think, when the helm was shifted?
Mr. OLLIVER. The iceberg was away up stern.
surely it would have made the navigation of the boats Practically impossible?
Of course not ,when the Titanic transitted the strip of pack ice.
Collins
|
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 45
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:06 pm: | |
Oh my goodness! I hope you don’t think I have been loosing my temper or anything like that. That is not the case at all. I love a good debate, and yes, it is a heated debate, and I am loving every minute of it because from every posting that is made, weather it is in answer to a posting I posted or one that somebody else posted, there is always an interesting answer. Some maybe from a different point of view, and some that agree with my point of view. Captain Collins has a fascinating point of view, and I am very interested in it. I am not trying to rip him off. I certainly am arguing some of his theories that I disagree with. That is what debate is all about
If I have offended anybody during the course of this debate, please accept my most sincere apologies. It was not my intention. We are all here because we have a common interest, and we all have our own opinions and points of view, and I respect that.
Regards,
Paul
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 11
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:20 pm: | |
"Mr. ROWE. I felt a slight jar and looked at my watch. It was a fine night, and it was then 20 minutes to 12. I looked toward the starboard side of the ship and saw a mass of ice.. Roughly, 100 feet [away], sir."
Why are you rewriting my post? I thought it would clarify. Should I have interposed [high]?
So Rowe felt a slight jar and saw ice 100 feet away, and a minute later it was a ship-length off the beam. I take this as crew testimony that the ice got further from the ship as it passed astern. As you requested here: Where in the evidence did the crew testify the ice got further from the ship as it passed astern?
In my book I state: "And ever since that time the misinterpretation of the evidence that was given at the courts of inquiry has perpetuated the myth that the Titanic collided with an iceberg.."
Maybe, if you perused the evidence you would not misintrepret. What makes you think I haven't perused the evidence? I have not seen anything presented in testimony that supports your thesis except that of Hitchens which, as I have pointed out, is highly suspect. We have seen ample reference to crew and passengers recalling an iceberg that reached to the boat deck, and no mention of pack ice. We have seen numerous reports of the contact with ice while under port helm, and one while under starboard.
"My comment: within about a minute after impact-the ship having gone forward about three ship lenghts - Scarrott's iceberg is off the starboard beam about a ship's lenght (890 feet)away."
Common sense and logic dictate that Scarrot could not,possibly, have seen an iceberg that Titanic collided with. My application of common sense and logic to the port helm scenario suggest that as the ship continued its clockwise rotation, Scarrott's iceberg would wind up some distance off the stern on the starboard side.
I cannot envision a port turning scenario in which the forces would work out this way...For this to occur without causing catastrophic damage strains credibility.
We aren't going to get the good Captain to recant his theory
The reputation of an expert is sometimes based on what he knows, but more often on what others don't know. I think it would be more accurate to say that expertise is conferred by other experts who concur with your hypothesis. |
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 47
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 9:49 pm: | |
Captain,
Let me ask you this: Do you get Pack ice standing anywhere near 50 feet high?
I can certainly understand when the evidence of one person conflicts with somebody else’s evidence, as it so often happened in the inquiries. It is always debatable, but when several people testify that they saw an Iceberg, and all the evidence corresponds more or less, I find it very difficult not to believe their testimony.
All I am trying to understand is, if this wasn’t an iceberg that all these people saw, then what was it that they saw standing some 50 to 70 feet above the water?
Paul
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
Here is a view of the collision time line presented in tabular form. Perhaps someone adept with graphics tools can animate it.
Contact is assumed to begin at Time 0 at Distance 0. "Angle" is Titanic's rotation with respect to her course line.
A constant speed of 37 fps is assumed, even though slight decelerations could be expected throughout the turns and collision.
No engine orders are included in the model, because 1) an officer of Murdoch's caliber would have known better than to kill his rudder effectiveness in the situation, and 2) the testimony from the engine room establishes that the collision happened almost simultaneously with the power commands - a result of 1).
Steering engine speed is assumed at 5 seconds from amidships to hard over; lock-to-lock is 10 seconds. Spool-up is not addressed.
The ship's turn rate is 1.5 deg/sec, and the time required to overcome inertia is only roughly approximated.
| Time | Distance | Angle | Notes | | -50 | -1850 | 0 | Sighting, bell | | -40 | -1480 | 0 | Hard a'starboard | | -30 | -1110 | -10 | | -20 | -740 | -20 | Hard a'port | | -10 | -370 | -15 | | 0 | 0 | -5 | CLR is displaced 30'-40' to the left of the original course line | | 10 | 370 | 10 | End of contact; stern is clear | | 20 | 740 | 25 | | 30 | 1110 | 40 |
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 86
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
Paul:
All I am trying to understand is, if this wasn’t an iceberg that all these people saw, then what was it that they saw standing some 50 to 70 feet above the water?
I suggest you read my book, "The Sinking of the Titanic: An Ice Pilot's Perspective" where you will find a comprenhensive explanation.
Regards,
Collins
|
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 49
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
Captain,
I have already placed the order for your book. I am expecting it to arrive some time next week.
Paul
|
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 90
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
I have already placed the order for your book. I am expecting it to arrive some time next week.
Thank you, Paul! After you have read it, I welcome any queries you might have.
Regards,
Collins |
Paul Visser
Member
Username: gandalf
Post Number: 50
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Captain,
I can not wait to read it, and I look forward to many debates with you over the subject after I have read your book. I always keep open mind to a different point of view.
Use the money to buy your self a few ales or preferred beverages, so you don’t run dry while we have a riviting discussion about your book I have to tear myself away from the computer to go to bed!
Paul
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
Alicia: It was interesting to see your view of the collision timeline. However, to accurately present the track of the Titanic that night one must take into account the Titanic’s maneuvering characteristics as best we can. To begin with there are several known items which must be factored in.
1. The Titanic’s turning radius which we can get from Eaton & Haas Chapter 4. During her sea trials off Belfast Lough, at 20.5 knots, Titanic turned a full circle of measured diameter of 3850 ft. Not sure if this was the tactical diameter or the final diameter, but it gives us an estimate to work with. What I used is a final turning diameter of 4000 ft (allowing for a slight increase in turning radius with the Titanic moving at 22 knots on the night of 14 Apr 1912).
2. The speed of a ship in a turn will decrease due to increased resistance. From Ref. 2, we can estimate this from a plot of steady turning speed to approach speed ratio as a function of turning diameter to ship length ratio. For Titanic at 22 knots approach speed, and taking 4000 ft turning diameter and a length of 852 ft, the turning diameter to ship length ratio is 4.7. Now from Ref. 2 we get a steady turning speed between 70% to 85% of the approach speed. I used 77% which gives 17 knots in the steady turn phase. This does not happen instantaneously. The ship will decelerate as it goes further into a turn until this is reached when it is in a steady turn. This slowing should also be accounted for. In any event, the steady turning rate at 17 knots under hard helm is 0.8 deg per second. The peak turning rate in the early part of the turn would be about 1 deg per second. (see slide 10 in Ref. 2).
3. We know from tests done to the Olympic as reported by Wilding, that the ship’s heading will turn two points (22.5 degrees) in 37 seconds following a hard-a-starboard order.
4. The course angle and ships heading angle are not the same. One must also take into account the drift angle which builds up from 0 at the start of turn to a maximum in the steady turn phase. (again see slide 10 in Ref. 2). In my analysis I assumed a max drift angle of 15 deg for a ship under max helm at 17 knots in the steady turn phase. I allowed a build up of drift angle to 9 deg in the 37.5 seconds for the ship to reach a heading change of 22 degrees in my analysis.
5. It is assumed that Murdoch may have ordered a hard-a-port order about the same time (or immediately just before) the Titanic struck the ice in order to clear the stern. It was also assumed that the ship struck ice after achieving a two-point heading change (22.5 deg). In my analysis I assumed it takes about 7.5 seconds for the helm to swing from amidships to the max of 40 deg hard over, or 15 seconds from full starboard to full port. In slide 23 of Ref. 2 they show a ship zig-zag maneuver with the rudder angle changed to the opposite direction about 35 seconds after the initial rudder change. Interesting coincidence that the ship’s heading angle fallen off about 20 degrees at the time of the rudder change. It is also noted that the ship continues to turn in the original direction till it reaches a peak of nearly 30 deg before turning in the oppose direction, and does not pass the 0 deg point until about 60 seconds after the rudder shift began. Also interesting is turn over a period of 1 minute for this ship of 50 deg, or about 0.82 deg per sec, about the same turning rate of the Titanic in the steady turn phase at 17 knots. These characteristics were applied in my analysis lacking any better available data to work with.
6. I did not account for any reversing or stopping of the engines. Reversing the engines would have taken some time to do and would have been noticed by just about everyone on board. In her sea trials (see Eaton & Haas) such action was done with Murdoch and Moody taking measurements. It was observed that “the entire vessel shuddered as the stress of full speed astern was imposed on her hull.” At 20 knots, the Titanic took about 2550 ft to come to a complete stop. As far as the Stop order is concerned, I assumed it had no effect over the contact interval with the ice even if it was rung down to the engine room before contact was made. My reasoning is based on the following documented observation by Beesley describing the collision: “There came what seemed to me nothing more than an extra heave of the engines and a more than usually obvious dancing motion of the mattress on which I sat. Nothing more than that – no sound of a crash or anything else … And presently the same thing repeated with about the same intensity. The thought came to me that they must have still further increased the speed … And so, with no thought of anything serious having happened to the ship, I continued my reading … But in a few moments I felt the engines slow and stop; the dancing motion and the vibration ceased suddenly after being part of our very existence for four days…” Notice that the stopping of the engines came after the contact with the ice. That is quite clear from this very observant eye witness.
What I have done is not to try to fit a solution to a desired outcome. My approach is to apply as best we can what is known, and then see what the results show before coming to any conclusions. The resulting diagrams from my analysis show two scenarios. First is the Titanic under starboard helm (port rudder) only. The second is the Titanic doing a port-around maneuver with the shift of helm taking place at or seconds before she struck ice. What needed to be added to the diagrams is the iceberg that so many eye witnesses saw that night.
There were many descriptions given as to the size and distance to the berg. Heights from 30 ft to over 100 ft or more were estimated. What I decided to use was an estimate given by a motor engineer traveling to the US who saw the berg go by from the smoking room on A deck, along with several other passengers that were there involved in or observing a card game there. As reported in Beesley’s book, this passenger said he “was accustomed to estimating distances” and in response to a question as to the height of the berg, he put it at between 80 to 90 ft. This is consistent with a few other observations and is what I decided to use. Now we still need to estimate the width, and for this I looked at the berg described in http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/iceberg_pfeifer.shtml. From this I used a width factor of 3 to 4 times the height and created something of irregular shape. I also decided to draw an underwater contour that included an ice shelf, extending no more than about 100 feet from the side of the surfaced part of the berg, at a depth of about 25-30 ft below the waterline to take into account grounding theories. This was completely arbitrary but an attempt to see if something could fit the puzzle. Then I simply dropped the created berg onto the turning diagrams to see what it all looks like, assuming an initial strike of the underwater shelf at the starboard bow at the point where the Titanic had turned two points to port from its initial heading.
These diagrams are attached. The ship is shown in increments of every 7.5 seconds. The approximate start of each helm change is indicated. (If my animation tool is still working, I may eventually try to animate these.)
Observations based on these diagrams would be:
1. If the Titanic was just in a hard turn to port only, the entire starboard side aft of amidships would have likely hit the side wall of the surfaced part of the berg and possibly ripping open many of the compartments from side impact from about BR number 2 on aft. That is in addition to any underside contact made to compartments forward of that point caused by hard grounding on the ice shelf portion of the berg.
2. If a hard-a-port helm order (starboard rudder) was carried out at or just before the initial ice strike, as shown in the 2nd scenario diagram, then the ice contact would be confined to the underside of the ship assuming an ice shelf more or less as shown. However, this underside contact should have lasted for most of the entire length of the vessel unless other action caused the underside contact to end. This of course could include damage to the ice shelf itself as the Titanic exerted more and more pressure on the ice as suggested by others in this forum. (“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” – Sir Isaac Newton.) For those on the ship observing the passing of the berg along the starboard side, the berg would have appeared to be very close to the ship’s hull. Keep in mind that the Titanic was also heeling toward the berg while still turning to port due to the hydrodynamic pressure center being below the center of gravity while in a turn. This slight heeling would be noticeable especially up in the crows nest, but not unusual since it would be expected for a hard turn at high speed. A lifting of the starboard side, however, due to a strike on an underwater ice shelf could easily cause a slight heel in the oppose direction, again most noticeable from the crows nest. I believe Fleet reported this to have happened.
I welcome any comments, and can make some of the additional slides and details from this analysis available upon request.
Web References:
1) http://www.tpub.com/content/administration/14220/css/14220_339.htm
2) http://web.nps.navy.mil/~me/tsse/TS4001/lectures/11.pdf
3) http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/iceberg_pfeifer.shtml
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 4:32 am: | |
Samuel, Bravo!
Your splendid plot draws pretty much the picture I have had in my mind's eye after spending hours at the kitchen table with Titanic and iceberg models. In general, it seems my ballpark approximations of how long things take were off by considerable margins; admittedly, my rotation angles at each 10-second increment contained ample WAG. The precision you have added to my back-of-the-envelope math is most illuminating and appreciated.
Yes, I understood that the speed (and turning rate) would fall off in a turn, but I didn't have any appreciation for the magnitude. Clearly also, the ship's inertia has to be overcome in the lateral plane, so the acceleration times you added lend detail to the picture.
I'm gonna have fun with this. Thanks. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 7817
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Samuel, I'm impressed! I hope at some point you consider writing a feature length article on this for publication. While there are likely a few bugs that'll have to be worked out, I'm sure a few of our resident deck officers can give you some useful insights to work with.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 91
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Samuel:
Having simulated like scenarios (noted in my book page 37) at the St. John's Centre for Marine Simulation of Memorial Univerisity, St. John's, Newfoundland, I am impressed with your analysis, which is theorical, but not in concert with Titanic evidence.
Plots 1 and 2, indicate full speed ahead is maintained after impact with ice.
This is not supported by any evidence, which states Murdoch as saying, "I put her hard-a-starboard and run the engines full astern.."
I acknowledge you preface item 5 with an assumption, and item 6 did not account for any reversing of the engines. Again in item 6, you state, The resulting diagrams from my analysis show two scenarios. First is the Titanic under starboard helm (port rudder) only. The second is the Titanic doing a port-around maneuver with the shift of helm taking place at or seconds before she struck ice. You give no indication of engines stop/reversed. Hydrodynamically, a starboard turn (Hard a port helm) was impossible with engines going astern.
Please refer to my ET article "Titani's Final Manoeuvre"
If there were an iceberg, I agree, based on these diagrams: 1. If the Titanic was just in a hard turn to port only, the entire starboard side aft of amidships would have likely hit the side wall of the surfaced part of the berg and possibly ripping open many of the compartments from side impact from about BR number 2 on aft. That is in addition to any underside contact made to compartments forward of that point caused by hard grounding on the ice shelf portion of the berg.
Regards,
Collins
|
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 14
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Aside from the fact that no one aboard detected anything like the kind of vibration that would be caused by a "crash back," I wonder if any inferential clues can be developed based on the amount of time it would take to:
Receive and apply a command to the engine controls (with the officers off-station)
Slow the engines to a stop (with the slipstream pushing them forward)
Spool up the engines in reverse (with the slipstream opposing them)
Does anyone have a feel for how long this would take? At what point would rudder effectiveness have been substantially diminished? Negated altogether?
A separate but related issue would be: facing collision with an obstacle he thought he could avoid by maneuvering around, how likely would Mr. Murdoch have even considered reversing the engines? |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 94
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:53 pm: | |
Samuel:
Further to my previous post, allow me to make one other comment on you plot 1: If Titanic's starboard bow had made contact with an iceberg there would have been a pronounced sheer to port. This sheer, coupled with interaction, would have further pressured the starboard side unto the iceberg.
Collins |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 6:09 pm: | |
Samuel,
If you have a few hundred hours to spare ;-) it might be interesting to see a plot of a collision that takes place a little while later, after the course reversal had taken effect. Hichens said that the collision took place at two points off his prescribed course.* My thinking is that maybe the ship was already turning back, such that its inertia would have carried it through the turn. The fact that the damage ended just inside Boiler Room #5 strongly suggests that contact was lost due to the hull turning away. With the point of contact so close to the fulcrum (and growing closer as the encounter progressed), the moment represented by the mass of the hull behind that point would have been staggering in relation to that ahead of it. Further corroboration of the physics is revealed in the damage pattern: the increasing severity of the breaches from fore to aft is consonant with increasing pressure of the contact resulting from the shortening of the moment arm forward of the pivot as the hull slid past.
----------------------------------
* Hichens' testimony is sufficiently ambiguous on this point to call into question the reliability of his recollection of the entire event. It doesn't make sense that the rudder wasn't hard over; had it not been, the ship couldn't have transferred ~20° in the interval. It also makes the "37 seconds" highly suspect. This, in turn, makes the distance to the ice when maneuvers commenced much less definite.
948. Had you had any instructions before she struck? Had you been told to do anything with your helm before she struck? - Just as she struck I had the order "Hard-a-starboard" when she struck.
949. Just as she struck, is that what you said? - Not immediately as she struck; the ship was swinging. We had the order, "Hard-a-starboard," and she just swung about two points when she struck.
950. You got the order, "Hard-a-starboard"? - Yes.
951. Had you time to get the helm hard a starboard before she struck? - No, she was crashing then.
952. Did you begin to get the helm over? - Yes, the helm was barely over when she struck. The ship had swung about two points.
953. She had swung two points? - Yes.
954. (The Commissioner.) Do let me understand; had she swung two points before the crash came? - Yes, my Lord.
955. (The Attorney-General.) I am not quite sure that I understand what you had done to the helm before this. You had got an order, "Hard-a-starboard"? -"Hard-a-starboard," yes.
956. You proceeded at once to put the wheel hard-a-starboard? - Immediately, yes.
957. Before the vessel struck had you had time to get the wheel right over? - The wheel was over then, hard over.
958. (The Commissioner.) Before she struck? - Oh yes, hard over before she struck. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 66
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Alicia: I don't have that much time on my hands, especially this week. But the testimony of Hichens is quite contradictory. I personally believe that he was confused or trying to protect himself by giving all indications that it was not his fault the ship struck ice, just following orders. As questioning progressed his story changed enough so that things started to make sense.
993. You have told us what happened; first of all, the signal of the three bells, then the telephone message, then it was repeated to the First Officer, "Iceberg right ahead"; then the First Officer went to the telegraph to give an order to the engine room and gave you the order, "Hard-a-starboard"? - Yes.
994. At any rate up to his going to the telegraph as I follow you, there was no change of speed? - No, Sir.
995. What that order was you do not know? - No, Sir.
996. Then "Hard-a-starboard," and you immediately put up your helm? - Hard-a-starboard.
997. Right over? - Yes.
998. What is it, 35 degrees? - Forty degrees.
999. Then you got the helm right over? - Right over, Sir.
1000. Then she comes round two points and then strikes. Is that right? - The vessel veered off two points; she went to the southward of west.
1001. And then struck? - Yes.
=====
1007. And the ship moved two points? - Yes.
1008. Assuming the iceberg was right ahead, I should like to see what difference the two points would make, and what part of the ship would then be presented to the iceberg? - Yes.
=====
And remember Hichens could not see anything. The wheelhouse was closed up:
1002. Were there blinds in the wheelhouse? - Yes.
1003. They were all closed? - Always closed just after sunset.
He only was able to feel and hear the collision:
1032. Could you see them being closed? - I could not see anything but my compass.
1033. Where you were you would not be able to see it? - No.
1045. When the vessel struck, did you feel any shock? - Yes. I felt the ship tremble, and I felt rather a grinding nature along the ship's bottom.
What we know about the turning ability of the Olympic/Titanic sister ships comes from sea trials. From the time the helm is put hard-a-starboard until the ship's heading changed two points was 37 seconds. That is documented fact.
Now it is interesting that if there were a helm order given at the time she struck the ice, changing 948 to read -
'Just as she struck I had the order Hard-a-Port when she struck' - then things start to really make some sense.
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Samuel,
The reason I question the famous "37 seconds" is because it is hard to see how Titanic's head would have swung 2 points in that interval after the helm was ordered hard over. If it takes ~27 seconds to traverse 22½° in an established 17-knot circle, that only leaves 10 seconds for the wheel to be turned to the stop, latency in the steering engine, rudder motion, and the buildup of enough hydrodynamic force to transfer the hull through two points. Since the rudder displacement alone takes 5 seconds, I don't see how it adds up, even at an initial rate of 1°/sec.
Another thing I wonder about is the interval between the sighting and the order. If, as some evidence suggests, the turn was already in progress when Fleet rang up Moody, then the whole sighting-to-collision timeline is knocked into a cocked hat. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 68
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
I agree that 37 seconds if not the time from first sighting to impact. Too many other variables get into that one. The 37 seconds is the time from hard-a-starboard order being executed to the ship's heading change of 22.5 deg. This was done in the Olympic and reported by Wilding.
25292. Does that complete the information? - No, there is a little more information that I think the Court wishes to have. Since the accident, we have tried the "Olympic" to see how long it took her to turn two points, which was referred to in some of the early evidence. She was running at about 74 revolutions, that corresponds to about 21 1/2 knots, and from the time the order was given to put the helm hard over till the vessel had turned two points was 37 seconds.
In my analysis I assumed 7.5 sec to get the rudder over 40 deg from its center position. The rest was based on data from Ref. 2 in my earlier post describing the analysis. Keep in mind that the speed does not drop off immediately from 22 to 17 knots, buts does so over a period of time. The deceleration in speed is accounted for in the analysis. Happy to send you a ppt file and doc file with more details, including heading, drift and course angles that I calculated in 7.5 sec increments, and all assumptions made.
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:45 pm: | |
Samuel:
Now it is interesting that if there were a helm order given at the time she struck the ice, changing 948 to read -
'Just as she struck I had the order Hard-a-Port when she struck' - then things start to really make some sense.
IF there had been a helm order of Hard-a Port, which of course the evidence supports there was not, and the engines were reversed FULL ASTERN, the Hard -a-Port helm order would have served no useful purpose because of cavitation nullifying the rudder effect..
On the other hand, if there had been a Hard-a-Port helm ordered and engines speed maintained at FULL AHEAD, there would not have been a sinking with the lost of life.
(reference by book page 37-38-39) |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:57 pm: | |
Sure, the speed drops off gradually (and the fact is we don't know exactly how long it took to get to 17 kts in the test). But I think it's fair assume the vessel's dv/dt is close to constant because the higher parasitic drag at the beginning (square law) is offset by the greater resistance to advance at the end (deeper bow angle).
But splitting the difference in speed from start to finish of the turn - if it's safe to do that - at 20 kts (~1°/sec), you STILL only have 14 seconds to
1. Issue order
2. Turn wheel
3. Spool up steering engines
4. Move rudder
5. Overcome inertia
6. Start turn
7. Slew opposite
8. Complete turn
...even granting that 2-4 overlap one to the next, I don't see how there's enough time. I wonder if the test was fudged in an effort to obfuscate where responsibility lay. Who would do that, and what the motive would be, is beyond me. |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 139
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Dan Cherry -- Posted on Thursday, 29 January, 2004 - 5:56 pm
I am afraid I've seen nothing in testimony or opinion that would convince me to accept the theory being postulated here...
Ever since the Sinking of the Titanic the misintrepretation of the evidence that was given at the courts of inquiry has perpetuated the myth that the Titanic collided with an iceberg, towering some 55 to 60 feet above the water.
Presenting an historical account, in the preservation of said history, must adhere to the facts.
I agree, but I would add, "Misintrepretation of the evidence distorts the facts."
Regrettably, as so often happens in history, the legend was far more important than the facts. -- Professor Arthur J. Marder
L. M. Collins
|
david wilson
Member
Username: skiboo
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Sam,nice one,explains a lot.I have built & sailed a few & for anybody who doesn't understand what happens when you turn a boat at speed,try reversing your car at 50kmh round your carpark & see how far you get!!
regards.
dw. |
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
US $474.60 1 Bid
