| Author |
Message |
    
Amanda Ratliff
Member
Username: mander
Post Number: 48
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 10:28 am: | 
|
I've been looking all evening and I know I've seen it before. How long did it take for Titanic to actually 'hit bottom' after she disapeared beneath the surface. I've looked through several analysis of the breakup etc but found no estimated time. |
Tom Pappas
Member
Username: landlubber
Post Number: 554
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:02 am: |
|
The pieces went almost straight down, quickly reaching a maximum velocity of about 30 mph. They would cover the 2½ miles to the sea bed in about 5 minutes.
"I still think about the 'might-have-beens' of the Titanic..." - Walter Lord
|
Jamie Bryant
Member
Username: jp_morgan
Post Number: 61
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 1:09 pm: |
|
I'm just wondering, but how long was it before the bow section hit the sea-bed? |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 57
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:19 pm: |
|
At a probable terminal velocity of 30 mph, six minutes is a good ballpark. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 97
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 5:30 pm: |
|
And in Ballard's book, The Discovery of the Titanic, Chapter 10, he = also estimated 25 to 30 mph and 6 minutes. Capt. Collins, however, has a = theory that would take the hull 2 hours to descend, spending most of the time = with 300-400 feet of the surface. See http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/84847.html?107= 7556 449 .
Sam Halpern
Lat 40*24'N Lon 74*14'W
|
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:26 pm: |
|
well, don't the submersibles freefall, and that takes over an hour?
I read one book- 'Titanic Revisited'; I believe, a pre discovery book, that suggested Titanic hit the sea bottom at the speed of sound....
How that could happen with the resistance of the water is beyond me...
regards
Tarn Stephanos |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:05 am: |
|
The subs are only slightly negative buoyant (and only slightly positive when they dump their ballast). It takes two to three hours each way. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8058
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 2:48 am: |
|
>>How that could happen with the resistance of the water is beyond me... <<
Don't worry, Tarn. It can't.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Nix MacPherson
Member
Username: phacade
Post Number: 1
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 6:01 pm: |
|
What is the liklihood anyone could have lived at the point when the Titanic hit the bottom? And if so, for how long? I know there were supposed to be rather large walk in refrigerators and smaller units that perhaps a panicing person could have in in, or perhaps somewhere else. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8586
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 7, 2004 - 1:47 am: |
|
>>What is the liklihood anyone could have lived at the point when the Titanic hit the bottom? <<
None whatever. The pressure of the water increases the deepeer you go. At 12,500 feet, the pressure is 3 1/2 tons per square inch. You just don't survive something like that. As to the spaces you mentioned, in all likelihood, they imploded when the stern section was only a few hundred feet down. That would certainly explain why cork...a common insulating material...was found in the wreckage that bobbed back up to the top. Anyone inside one of those things would have been killed instantly.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jing Hua Wu
Member
Username: titan_ice
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 4:59 pm: |
|
My guess is that it took her about 5 to 10 minutes(at least for the bow; the stern might have been faster). I don't think the bow went straight down, otherwise the wreck would have crumpled somewhat like an accordion, which is sort of what happened to the stern.
Like what Michael said, the water pressure is way too high. Submarines that explore the ship have to have really thick hull to prevent them from imploding. And no one would design some sealed room on a ship that can withstand such a high water pressure; it's just not necessary. |
Alicia Coors
Member
Username: snowbunny
Post Number: 157
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 5:11 pm: |
|
quote:I don't think the bow went straight down, otherwise the wreck would have crumpled somewhat like an accordion...
The main difference was that the bow, being full of water, was incompressible, whereas the stern was full of air. All three pieces went almost straight down, as can be seen graphically by reducing the scale of the scene by a factor of 1000: over a height of 12.5 feet, the bow and stern landed less than a foot from the boilers, which hit bottom directly below where they fell out of the ship. |
Donald J A Smith
Member
Username: don
Post Number: 114
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Alicia's graphic presentation of the facts of the case are - and I have come to always expect them to be - 'sci-en-tif-ic-al-ly' (as Isaiah Berlin pronounced it) sound. So highly informed. And yet so very accessible. |
Jing Hua Wu
Member
Username: titan_ice
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 7:16 pm: |
|
You're right Alicia, I failed to consider that. I'm not arguing that the bow drifted under the ocean before coming to rest, but i feel the bow's descent is not as straight down as the stern because the bow actually plowed into an embankment once it settled, signifying that it must have deviated somewhat from a straight-down course. When the bow hit the bottom, the forecastle was bent downward, not upward, like what would of happened if it hit a sloped bottom straight down. If the bow really went straight down, it would have been of equal distance from the debris field from the stern, but in real life it's not. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 8684
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 4:16 am: |
|
For what it's worth, tank tests performed for the Discovery Channel's documentary "Answers From the Abyss" showed the bow section going down in a seesawing motion while planing away on an angle from the point where it left the surface.
Caveat: I don't know how valid these tests were. We can't know whether every assumption made was accurate, but it's out there.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Adam Tarzwell
Member
Username: canadian_titanic20
Post Number: 60
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 2:29 am: |
|
Anyone have any information on how long after the back section of the stern sank beneath the water did it take her to come to her final resting place 12,000+ feet down?
[Moderator's Note: Three subtopics addressing the same question have been merged to become this one. MAB] |
michelle rowlett
Member
Username: mrowl
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 12:54 pm: |
|
I was wondering how long it would have taken (once it had split in two) for the pieces to reach the bottom of the seabed) Could someone tell me please ? Thank you.
[Moderator's Note: This message, originally posted to a different thread, has been moved to this pre-existing thread on the same subject. MAB] |
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Hello Michelle,
I think it was mentioned in the "Answers from the Abyss" documentary from 20 - 30 minutes for the bow. I disagree with the 5 - 10 minutes estimate for the bow as posted above, based on the analysis that it may have gone down in a seesawing motion. It might be possible for the stern though since it wasn't filled with water, whereas the bow was.
Many pieces of debris and other wreckage from the ship, fell to the seabed for many hours afterwards.
I hope this helps.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
|
