| Author |
Message |
    
Gregg Wigen
Member
Username: wig
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:30 pm: | 
|
Right, but what I was trying to get at, and obviously did quite badly at...
It is easy to calculate the point at which a regularly formed object (like a ruler) will fall off that table based upon the ruler's weight, the friction value of the table and the air pressure wherever you are at when you perform the experiment.
With a simple falling experiment you can also predict almost as precisely when an oddly shaped object will fall from the table as well.
However, with buoyancy experiments, various odd factors come into play which can skew the point at which an object 'should' sink.
Obviously I'm only muddling it up more though. |
Noel F.Jones
Member
Username: ver1tas
Post Number: 816
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 4:49 am: |
|
Should we take it that you are attempting to illustrate some connection between the progressive immersion of an amorphous permeable object and a ship's margin line and Bonjean curves of section? |
david wilson
Member
Username: skiboo
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 6:10 am: |
|
I think at this point the "diagonal steam trap"enters,stage left.
seven degrees west.
regards
dw. |
Adam Lang
Member
Username: langer
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
I'm not even close to being an expert on physics or anything, but I think Gregg has a point, here. When I was little, I used to play with my toy boats at the pool. Sometimes, I would pretend they were sinking, like all of us have probably done at some point with a toy boat. As more water enters the ship, the increasing weight of it pulls the ship down faster and faster.
I think Aaron demonstrated a good point that the water entered through different areas of the ship other than the gash as it sank further down, but I still think the increasing weight of the ship pulled it down faster. You could look at it like this: What would sink the Titanic faster? 1,000 gallons of water or 100,000 gallons of water (I'm just throwing you wild numbers, here; I don't even know if that would be enough to sink it or not)? I'm working off of the concept that more weight attatched to an object will pull it down further. So in the end of the sinking, it must not have been all the doors, the Grand Staircase dome, and the gash letting more and more water in, but the weight of the water trapped inside that pulled it down. That was why there was so much air trapped in the stern making all those explosions as she went down--the extra weight pulled the ship down so fast that there wasn't enough time to fill "all the nooks and crannies" as Gregg said.
Any words on this theory?
-Adam Lang |
Richard Edwards
Member
Username: titanorac9370
Post Number: 51
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 1:21 pm: |
|
I've thought for a long time that the weight of the water in the forward section of the bows (forward of the first expansion joint) combined with the possible implosion of hatches #2 and 3 caused the hull to sag at the forward expansion joint. Lightoller saw the expansion joint open and he described it absolutely accurately to what we see on the wreck today. If the bows forward of the expansion joint did sag down this could well have caused the wave that survivors attested to.
Cheers Rich |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
