| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Username: oceanic3
Post Number: 182
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 3:32 pm: | 
|
You're right Dave, it is good to have a decent discussion about all this. Long may it last!
Cheers
Paul |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1218
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Sorry if this is long post, but there are several points I feel I have to address.
Paul Slish said: "From hydrodynamic principles that I have read, a ship freely floating in a current will eventually swing to a position broadside to that current."
I think you should check your reference. A ship freely floating on the surface of the sea will only be affected by the current if there is a current gradient across the hull of the vessel. The effect of current is treated by using the relative velocity between the ship and the water. Local surface current velocities in the open ocean are generally modest and close to constant in the horizontal plane especially over an area the size of a ship. Once the ship is stopped dead in the water there is no relative velocity between the two and no water flow across the hull. There is therefore no hydrodynamic forces to cause the ship to swing one way or another.
Now having "light airs and calms" as Stone put it will have an affect on the direction the ship is heading, especially a ship that is stopped with its helm left in the hard-aport position (see BI 8150). As Dave Gittins said, a ship presents a very large area to the wind, and even a feeble wind will have its effect felt. With the helm hard over, the affect of windage would be similar to that on a sailing vessel that is hove-to to ride out a storm. The ship would tend to turn broadside to the direction of the wind. With the wind light and variable at times, the swinging rate will not be constant and may very well reverse briefly at times. What we can say about the swinging of the Californian based on the relative bearings given by Gibson in his written account to Lord is that the direction of swing was generally clockwise. To try and assume anything about the time of certain events such as when a particular rocket was seen is highly unreliable and probably wrong. The bearings reported by Stone, other than the bearing of the observed ship when he took over the watch from Groves, simply cannot be trusted, a point I will come back to later.
As far as compass bearings Vs. true bearings, it appears to be quite clear the headings were magnetic headings taken off the standard compass, not true headings unless it was stated otherwise (see Lord below).
Groves (8475): "At the time I left the bridge we were heading E.N.E. by compass."
Stone (7820): And how were they bearing from you at this time? Ans. - "S.S.E. by the standard compass."
Stone (memo to Lord) "Mr. Groves, who also pointed out ice and steamer and said our head was E.N.E. and we were swinging. On looking at the compass I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam."
Lord (AI p. 732): "...but on seeing the ice, we were so close we had to reverse the engine and put her full speed astern, and the action of reversing turned the ship to starboard, and we were heading about northeast true." (Note: this is not a precise heading since he used the "about" qualifier but it is specifically given as a true heading as opposed to compass heading).
Now to the diagram I posted. The line of bearing shown on the chart is the line that the Californian had to be on AT THE TIME THE TITANIC FOUNDERED. I don't care where it was at the time of collision. That entails assumptions about the drift and set of the current. I'm making no assumptions about that here. I'm using an anchor point which cannot be challenged, the wreck site location. I'm using that agreed upon fact that neither the Titanic nor the Californian was moving. The only assumption I'm making is that the rockets seen by those on the Californian came from the Titanic. I am even leaving open the possibility that the lights of the ship seen from the Californian may not have been the Titanic. If Lord's 10:21 (Californian time) position was correct, then the Californian had to have drifted down to some unspecified point on that line in about 4 hours time. The closest point from Lord's stopped position to that line is about ten miles. It is highly unlikely that the Californian would drifted over that distance in that time and end up just about 11 miles north of the Boxhall SOS location when the Titanic went under. Lord's 10:21 PM DR had to be a good deal away from her true position at that time.
Now in Senan's book he claims that C/O Stewart took a 2nd pole star sight at 10:30 PM which showed the Californian at the latitude 42° 05' N, the same as in Lord's stopped location. This was a misinterpretation of what Stewart was saying.
8706. (The Solicitor-General.) What I want to know is, how they arrived at the latitude which is put down, I presume, by dead reckoning at 10.20. I am right; it would be by dead reckoning you would get it? - [Stewart] Not only that; I had the Pole Star at half-past ten.
I think we can all see the danger of taking a statement literally without examining the overall context. The clarification is seen later in Stewart's testimony:
8798. When did you get the observation of the pole star that enabled you to fix your position? - About half-past 7.
8799. P.m.? - P.m., yes.
The context in 8706 above is clear, they were taking about how the 10:20 PM DR location came about. Steward was saying that at the time that the DR position was worked out, about 10:30 PM, they had a latitude from a measurement of the pole star taken 3 hours earlier at 7:30 PM to work with. At 10:30 PM there would not have been a visible horizon to get a reliable altitude of Polaris or any other star. Around 7:30 PM was the time that celestial sights could be taken with the horizon still visible as a reference.
Finally, back to Stone's compass bearings and how much reliability should be placed on them. In Stone's written account to Lord he writes:
"We saw nothing further until about 3:20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart."
Gibson also wrote about these additional lights as Stone had put it.
"At about 3:20 looking over the weather cloth, I observed a rocket about two points before the beam (Port), which I reported to the Second Officer. About three minutes later I saw another rocket right abeam which was followed later by another one about two points before the beam. I saw nothing else and when one bell went."
There is little doubt these these were the rockets sent up from the Carpathia as she was speeding to the rescue. The direction from which the Carpathia came (on a heading of N52°W true from Rostron) was out of the SE. The Carpathia spotted Boxhall's green flairs only 1/2 point off her port bow and slowed down and stopped about 4 AM. Bear in mind that the Carpathia would have been affected by the same current drift as any other ship in the vicinity as she approached the that area. Since she came up to Boxhall's boat without having to change her course much, she would have approached out of the SE true beyond where the Titanic would have been if she would have remained afloat. But look what Stone wrote: "...we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W." This is the WRONG direction. If he was converting to true bearings it makes what he says even worse. Once again we cannot take what Stone says or wrote concerning bearings as fact.
For whatever reason, Stone's bearings were wrong. His claim about the observed ship moving by the time of the 2nd rocket, had shut in her red light and showed her stern light as she steamed away toward the SW is wrong. Gibson saw that red light until after the 7th rocket before it disappeared and claimed that it was at that time Stone remarked to him that the steamer appears to be steaming away to the SW (see his Gibson's account to Lord). Even in Stone's written account to Lord he mentions the steamer first steaming away while he and Gibson watched the last three rockets go up. And as we know Gibson testified that he never saw anything that looked like a stern light after the red sidelight disappeared from view, and he never saw the steamer turn around.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 42
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 1:40 am: |
|
Sam, Thanks for your very interesting post. I will have to do some digging to relocate my sources on a ship drifting in a current. I question whether the position of the rudder would have had any effect on the swing of the ship. You have to have a certain speed of the ship (Steerage) to get enough water flowing past the rudder to have any effect on steering. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 43
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:27 am: |
|
The Californian's stop position.
I will condense my analysis as much as possible.
Noon position by observation on April 14, 1912
47 25 W, 42 05 N. Noon observation is done by taking multiple altitudes of the sun just before noon and continuing through noon. A seaman etc. also takes a chronometer reading for each sextant sight. The altitude of the sun will take the form of a sine curve as the sights proceed from before noon to after noon. To picture a sine curve think of a man walking over a rounded hill. He walks up, it levels off at the summit, and then he walks down. From the multiple sextant sights local noon is either hit right on or is extrapolated from the nearest before and after sights. The sun's altitude with the date and an almanac yields the latitude. Then the chronometer time is compared to the calculated local noon. The difference in time between the chronometer (Greenwich time) and local noon is used to calculate the longitude. 15 degrees for each hour ( 4 minutes time per degree) and 4 seconds for each minute of longitude. So if your chronometer is off by 4 seconds you are off by a minute of longitude. If your local noon is off by 4 seconds you are off by a minute of longitude.
The chronometer reading (Greenwich) for local noon would have been 3:09 and 40 seconds pm. This yields a longitude of 47 25 W. This would therefore be 1 hour 50 minutes and 20 seconds ahead of New York Time. Captain Lord rounded it off to 1 hour 50 minutes ahead of New York for Apparent Ship's time (AST)for after noon on April 15th to noon on April 16th. With 1912 technology, if the calculated latitude and longitude is within 2 miles either way that is considered good sights. So the Californian could have been as far south as 42 03 N and as far west at 47 28 W without any criticism of the noon fix.
A minute of longitude equals 1504 yards at this latitude. It is calculated as the cosine of 42.0833 degrees (42 05 ) time 2026 yards per nautical mile. Thus 3 minutes of longitude would be 1504 yards * 3 divided by 2026 yards per mile equals 2.23 nautical miles. That is how I came up with 47 28 W as the possible actual longitude of the Californian with it still being considered a good fix.
So now we have the possible range of the Californian's noon position. We will move on to course and speed now. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:39 am: |
|
Hi Paul. You are correct about needing to have water flow to have any affect on turning. That was my point, you need water movement somewhere to produce hydrodynamic forces. Once below a certain speed a rudder is no longer effective in keeping a specific heading because the forces acting on it are so small. That's when you loose steerageway. But even small speeds will have some effect on getting the ship to turn unless the rudder is completely stalled. On an airplane flying very slowly close to stall speeds we say the flight controls have a mushy feeling where they seem to loose their effectiveness and are not very responsive. Same thing here but its water flow instead of air flow.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 3:07 am: |
|
The Californian's course continued.
Captain Lord testified that the Californian was steaming at 11 knots on its present consumption of coal. The course was set to south 89 west true at noon. This is just one degree south of true west.
The next navigational marker is at 5:00 pm. It was not in the original inquiries but in Captain Lord's 1959 affidavit. Thus it must be treated with caution, but it does explain a later dead reckoning position that was given in 1912. At 5:00 pm two observations of the sun were taken by Second Officer Herbert Stone to check the longitude. Again the altitude of the sun, the date, time, and an almanac could be used to calculate the longitude. This gave a distance run from noon of 60 miles which is 12 knots. Another observation taken at 5:30 pm gave a distance run from noon of 64 miles which is 11.64 knots. This leads us to believe the Californian was doing around 11.75 knots. The exceedingly calm sea contributed to this. 4th Office Boxhall of the Titanic testified that he believed the Titanic made a little extra speed because of the very calm sea that day.
At 7:25 pm ship's time (5:35 pm New York time) the Californian sent a wireless message to the Antillian which read "To Captain, Antillian, 6.30 pm ATS [apparent time ship] Lat 42 3 N, Long 49 9 W, three bergs five miles to southward of us, Regards,Lord." Using spherical trigonometry this leads to a calculation of 77.37 miles between the noon position and the 6.30 pm dead reckoning position. In all likelihood Captain Lord used an estimated distance travelled of 77 miles in 6 and a half hours. This calculates to a speed of 11.85 knots. The Californian's estimated position and the estimated distance of the icebergs was broadcast on April 14, 1912. This is why I conclude that the sun observations taken at 5.00 pm and 5.30 pm were used to estimate speed even though they were not revealed until 1959. How else do we explain Captain Lord broadcasting a position that shows a speed of 11.85 knots and not 11 knots?
This will be significant in calculating the Californian's 10:21 pm stop position and how that related to a nearby steamer bearing SE true and the Titanic bearing SE true hull down over the horizon. I hope to continue tomorrow. |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 496
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Paul Slish
That all seems very interesting and I look forward to seeing your post tomorrow.
Sam
Oddly enough if we move the Californian in a straight line from her DR Stop Location to that Line of true bearing on your chart, she's now actually further from Titanic.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
One other point to mention: Stone and Gibson certainly saw rockets fired from the Carpathia after 3.00am. The Carpathia was further away than the Titanic could ever have been. If S&G saw Carpathia's rockets, then they must also have seen Titanic's. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Hi Jesse:
It all depends on how you bring it to that line. I just pointed out the the closest that line comes to Lord's DR stopped position is about 10 miles. And to get there you would move SW true. But if you move directly south you get as close as 10.5 miles between the two ships.
From about 4 PM onward the Californian was entering the region of a strong Labrador current. We know this from the evidence given by Capt. Lord to Senator Smith in form of a table of temperatures, sea and air, for Apr 14 & 15. That current started to set the Californian southward and bit westward. Lord probably noticed the westward component by taken longitude sights at 5 and 5:30 PM. He used that to estimate his speed over ground which was a little faster than his speed through the water. He was also not trying to head due west true but to make lat 42° N, 51° W before resuming course directly for Boston. He states the reason for doing that was because of ice reports that he got. He knew he missed the corner point from the latitude he obtained at noon. That showed him 5 miles north of where he wanted to be. He wanted to cross 47° W at 42° 00'N, the corner point. With ice about, he wanted to remain at 42° N until reaching 51°W. Lord was a very prudent navigator. This was explained in his 1959 affidavit. Because he wanted to get back to 42° 00'N he was heading slightly south of due west true. This is also why his DR for 6:30 PM ATS transmitted to the Antillian (and picked up by the Titanic) had him at 42° 03'N instead of his noontime latitude of 42° 05'N.
It should be noted that a current does not first take effect when you come to a stop. It is having its affect while you are steaming. The only way on the open sea to recognized the total effect of a current set is to compare your DR position with a fix. The difference in distance between the two divided by the time since your last fix gives you the average current drift. The set is the bearing angle between the two.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 1:52 am: |
|
The course of the Californian (continued)
The next navigational issue to discuss is the wireless message the Parisian sent to the Californian. Captain Lord testified in the USA. "Mr. LORD. "14th April," no time given; "41º 55' 49º 14', passed three large icebergs." Not signed; no name to it.
Senator SMITH. You know from whom it came?
Mr. LORD. It was from the Parisian."
These would appear to be the same icebergs that the Californian observed at 6:30 pm ship's time and later radioed the position to the Antillian as I posted yesterday. The Californian had said they were five miles to the southward or 42 03 N minus 5 equals 41 58 N. Thus the Parisian had the icebergs 3 miles to the south of the Californian. This is acceptable navigation. Since both ships were giving a dead reckoning position we don't know which was correct. Or the icebergs may have been in the middle of the two positions at 41 56.5 N. The point I am making is that the Californian's latitude for the icebergs was very close to the Parisian's. This is an independent check that the Californian was not far off in its estimation of its latitude. It is likewise for the longitude. Parisian had 49 14 W; Californian had 49 09 W. The Parisian had them about 3.7 miles further to the west than the Californian had them. Again this is an independent check that they Californian was not way off in its longitude. In fact the Californian may have been a little further west than Captain Lord thought.
Now one might ask about the drift of the icebergs. Perhaps that accounted for most of the difference. I do not believe so. The two sightings were close in time and there wouldn't have been time for more than about a mile of drift. This does not significantly affect either DR position.
I will now demonstrate that the two sights were close together in time.
"Copy of File No. 63050-2995, US Hydrographic Office:
From Parisian, British Steamship. Master - William Hains.
Received in branch hydrographic office, Boston, Mass., April 24, and forwarded to Hydrographic Office, Washington. Received April 25.
"April 14, 4:30 P.M., latitude 41' 55' N., longitude 49' 02' W., passed first iceberg. 8 P.M., latitude 41' 42' N., longitude 49' 55' W., passed last iceberg. Between positions passed 14 medium and large icebergs and numerous growlers. Hains.""
Captain Hains stated he passed the first iceberg at 4:30 pm in latitude 41 55 N,longitude 49 02 W. He radioed that the three icebergs were in
41 55 N 49 14 W. That is the same latitude as the 4:30 pm report and 12 minutes of longitude further west. This is just under 9 miles further west. The Parisian was doing about 12 knots and thus she would have covered this distance in about 45 minutes of time. Thus she passed the three icebergs about 5:15 pm. The clocks of the Parisian and the Californian were probably within a few minutes of each other when they both reached their respective noons. Since the Californian passed these icebergs at 6:30 pm ship's time, she was thus only about one hour and fifteen minutes (75 minutes) steaming time astern of the Parisian. At the Californian's speed of about 11.8 knots that puts her only about fifteen (15) miles astern of the Parisian. That is why I stated that I don't believe those icebergs could have drifted more than mile or so between the two sightings.
The next navigational sight of the Californian was Chief Officer Stewart's sextant observation of the north star (pole star) between 7 and 8 pm as he testified in Britain. If he wasn't going to take a three star fix, a north star sight is a pretty good way to calculate the latitude. It makes sense for him to take a sight at that time. It was getting dark, but he could still see the horizon. Navigational reference works that I have read indicate that a north star sight should enable a competent navigator to obtain the latitude within two or three miles. This was more than acceptable for ocean voyages of 1912. Stewart obtained 42 05 N. That means it could have been reasonably either 42 02 or 42 03 N. I am trying to be as conservative as possible. |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 174
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:34 am: |
|
This is fascinating reading, Paul - thanks. I can't wait to see what your conclusions are.
warmest regards
dave |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 47
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 3:24 am: |
|
The Californian's course (continued).
Now we come to the Californian's stop position. Captain Lord calculated it at 42 05 N, 50 07 W as a DR position. He used a run of 120 miles from noon on the same latitude of 42 05 N according to his 1959 affidavit. His navigational reference must have given a figure of 1500 yards per minute of longitude. 120 miles times 2026 yards per mile equals 243,120 yards. Divide this by 1500 yards per minute of longitude equals 162.08 minutes which rounds to 162 minutes of longitude covered. Noon longitude of 47 25 W plus 162 minutes (2 degrees 42 minutes) brings you to
50 07 W longitude. 10 hours and 21 minutes from noon to stop time is 10.35 hours. 120 miles divided by 10.35 hours equals 11.6 knots for Captain Lord's calculated speed. Captain Lord relied heavily on the approximately 7:30 pm North Star sight of Chief Officer Stewart to obtain his latitude of 42 05 N.
Now I'll give my estimation of the actual Californian stop position. Steering a course of S 89 W perfectly would bring you south one minute of latitude (1.05 to be more exact) for just about every 60 miles run. So that would bring the Californian to 42 03 N. Helmsmen are not perfect and can be off by one mile for every 60 miles run according to what Captain David G. Brown has told me. That could have brought the Californian another two minutes south. So putting it all together I think 42 01 N is about as far south as the Californian could have been when she stopped at 10.21 pm. Of course errors could be to the north also, but we are estimating what the maximum likely southern difference could be from Captain Lord's calculated 42 05 N. It would not be bad navigation to be at 42 01 N.
There is one other factor to consider. The 1912 British Inquiry concluded the Californian was only 8 to 10 miles from the Titanic (Final Report). This is clearly impossible if the Californian was at latitude 42 01 N. One explanation given to account for the Californian being south of 42 01 N is a southern current acting on her for some time before she stopped. Captain Thomas Barnett, the Inspector who first wrote a report for the 1992 Reappraisal took this position, stating he believed a southern current was affecting the Californian from noon (see Report of 1992 Reappraisal). The Deputy Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, Captain James de Coverly, wrote the final report (see Report of 1992 Reappraisal). He rejected a southern current extending far to the east of longitude
50 00 W. He did not believe it would effect the Californian except perhaps toward the end of her run at 10:21 pm. He did believe it could have set the Californian as far south as 3.5 miles. I think this is excessive, and being set 1 mile south is a more likely maximum. So I conclude the most southern latitude of the Californian when she stopped was 42 00 N allowing for 1 mile os southern drift. The Californian would drift southward during the interval between stopping and the Titanic striking the iceberg about an hour and a half later. So her latitude could have been 41 59 N. This closely agrees with Captain de Coverly who believed the Californian was at 42 00N when the Titanic struck.
I now give my reasons for rejecting the idea that a southern current affected the Californian for several hours before she stopped.
1. If the Californian was set several miles to the south, then why wasn’t the Titanic also set several miles to the south? Captain de Coverly deduced that the Titanic was at 41 47 N when she struck the iceberg. That would put her right on course with no southern set at all. Both the Californian and Titanic were steaming almost due west. There was ice where the Titanic was (obviously), thus indicating that the Labrador Current was in effect at that latitude. The icefield was also ahead of the Titanic and in fact extended down south as far as 41 22 N according to other ships. So the fact that the Titanic was not set to the south leads me to believe the Californian was not set to the south more than 1 mile.
2. I am not aware of any other Captains of steamers that passed through that area (and it was a busy shipping track) reporting being pushed far to the south WHILE STEAMING. I have not found any incidents reported in either the USA or British Inquiry or in contemporary newspaper accounts. Again if the Californian was pushed far to the south, why don’t we have reports of the same effect on other ships? It appears the current did not push the Californian far to the south before she stopped.
3. The bodies of casualties from the Titanic drifted far to the east but very little to the south. Thus the south setting Labrador current did not extend much east of the collision sight, but the Gulf Stream was in effect (Molony, Senan, “Titanic and the Mystery Ship”, pp. 226-227)
Conclusion: My estimation for the stop latitude of the Californian is 42 00 N |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 4:09 am: |
|
The course of the Californian (continued)
Thank you Dave Moran for the kind words.
Now let's do longitude. My estimate is 50 12 W. This would be a speed of 11.95 knots if the noon position was perfect. But the Parisian had the three icebergs 5 minutes further to the west than the Californian, which even taking drift into consideration would be at least 4 minutes further west than the Californian thought she was. Captain Lord calculated his speed at 11.85 knots up to 6:30 pm, but then calculated it as 11.6 knots for the whole run since noon. Perhaps he was right the first time. If the Californian was at 47 27 W at noon (not 47 25 W) and stopped at 50 12 W at 10.21 pm, that puts her speed at 11.80 knots which is right in line with Captain Lord's first estimate of speed of 11.85 knots. The Californian was certainly capable of this speed in the very calm sea. After the Titanic sank and the Californian abandoned the search for survivors at 11:20 am on April 15, from Noon on April 15th to noon on April 16th the Californian steamed 275 miles according to an article in the Boston Globe of April 25, 1912. That comes out to 11.45 knots when there was not such a calm sea.
Some might say 50 12 W would put her into the ice field instead of just on the edge. But there is an interesting independent witness, the steamer Paula. “An ice advisory had been received from the Paula by the US Hydrographic Office. She reported that on 14 April at 5:30 p.m. she saw heavy pack ice and thirty large icebergs in one field, from latitude 41 55 N, longitude 50 13 W, to latitude 41 40 N, longitude 50 30 W” (Titanic and the Mystery Ship, pp. 337-338). So the Paula reports the icefield at one place at 41 55 N,
50 13 W. Thus it is not unreasonable to calculate a stop longitude of the Californian at 50 12 W in latitude 42 00 N.
I am not aware of any detailed survey of the icefield completed on the eastern side. Captain Rostron testified it was oriented from northwest to southeast where he met it (British 25501). This would be expected if he was at about 50 00 W and the icefield was about two miles west of him. Apparently the icefield bowed out to the east down where the Carpathia was. When the steamer Trautenfels encountered the icefield at 42 01 N she reported, “Soon after, heavy field ice was encountered which extended for a distance of 30 miles and made it necessary for the steamer to run in a south-west direction for 25 miles to clear it” (Titanic and the Mystery Ship, p. 336). So up where the Californian was, the eastern edge of the icefield was oriented in a northeast to southwest direction. So it would be unwise to assume the icefield was oriented in exactly the same direction for its entire eastern side.
Now this brings me to the conclusion.
If the Californian stopped at 42 00 N, 50 12 W, and then drifted to 41 59 N, 50 12 30 W at the time the Titanic struck, AND
The Titanic stuck at 41 46 N, 49 55 W,
Then at the time of the collision the Titanic would bear about Southeast true from the Californian. This matches Groves’ and Stone’s observation that the nearby steamer bore south southeast by the standard compass from them. To convert from compass bearing to true you must take into account variation (declination) and deviation. I assume the Titanic was hull down over the horizon on the same bearing, as the rockets were observed on that bearing.
The distance between the ships calculated by spherical trigonometry would be 18.44 nautical miles. If Stone’s eyes were five feet above the deck, his height above sea level would be 45 feet. Using the standard formula, everything on the Titanic below 81 feet in height would be below the horizon. This certainly does not match up with the ship that Lord, Groves, Stone, and Gibson observed. So it is possible that the Titanic bore about southeast true from the Californian and that the two ships were about eighteen (18) miles apart.
To be continued. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 4:14 am: |
|
The second printing of "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" is now available in England. I expect within a few weeks it will be available in the USA as well. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 1:23 pm: |
|
A couple of points (btw, good analysis):
first of all the Californian might have been in a locally stronger southern current than the Titanic.
Secondly, the Titanic steamed on for a few minutes, at an unknown speed after the collision. Its the consensus amongst researchers that the Titanic headed northerly, so she could have closed the Titanic-Californian gap to about 15 or 16 miles. This distance would allow some of the Titanic's lights to be seen by Lord, Stone, Gibson et al. |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 175
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Fascinating stuff, Paul - thanks for it.
Paul Lee raises a good point about Titanic steaming after the collision, David G Brown having made a sensible suggestion in his book that she was making very slowly for Halifax. So I think we are moving towards a consensus here.
It looks like you chaps have really gotten somewhere with this, and resolved a lot of the nagging questions.
Thanks very much
warmest regards
dave |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10581
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 3:47 pm: |
|
>>David G Brown having made a sensible suggestion in his book that she was making very slowly for Halifax. So I think we are moving towards a consensus here.<<
I wouldn't be so confident of including that part in any consensus. Trying to make for Halifax may have been the ultimate goal, but the pattern of manuevering described by both Dillon and Scott point to a ship that was run backward and forward in a fairly random manner. Almost as if they were testing things or trying to work their way out of ice to a clear area where boats could be safely launched.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Let me throw another little wrinkle into the mix. Quite honestly, trying to pinpoint fixes to exact and precise geographic locations is completely invalid within an historical perspective.
You are all using data in a modern GPS navigational manner. Things weren't that precise in 1912. Trying to shoot stars from a moving ship is an approximation, not an absolute. The ship constantly moves during the sights, even if drifting without power. As a result, even the best fix was only an approximation of the truth.
Add to this factors for personal preferences in rounding number...slight chronometer variances...hack watch errors...number transpositions in mathematics...and all of the other possible minor errors. No wonder that in 1912 navigation was still considered as more "art" than "science."
To give your work the ambiguity of 1912 methods, draw a "circle of confusion" around your fixes of about 3 mile radius and consider that anyplace within that circle is just as valid a "fix" as any other place. In essence, the ships could have been up to perhaps 6 miles closer or farther apart--or anything in between--and their fixes would still fall within the limits of the navigational systems in use at the time.
The ambiguity of old-style navigation is still part of the U.S. Coast Guard testing for licensed deck officers. The "right" answer for most dead reckoning navigation problems is not given. Candidates sitting the test must pick the most probable answer from a choice of four. This sounds like a guessing game, but the three "wrong" answers have demonstrable reasons for being incorrect, while the "right" answer is not precisely what the math of the problem says is correct.
----------
As to moving the ship after the accident, I stand by my conclusions that Titanic said it was going to Halifax. But, that does not mean in any way that the ship actually steamed toward Halifax. There simply is not enough hard data to say precisely what happened. The best hint we have is that Boxhall's CQD coordinates place the ship two miles north of the CQD coordinates apparently prepared by Captain Smith. How Boxhall came up with that difference has never been properly explained. The safe bet is that Titanic made some northing after the accident, and probably some westing but this latter possibility lies within the "totally unknowable" category.
So, add another couple of miles to the circle of ambiguity surrounding both the location where Titanic struck on the ice and where it stopped for the final time.
----------------------
Without trying to pinpoint either ship, there is one conclusion that I've come to about the relative positions of Californian and Titanic. That is, the more you know the fuzzier the picture becomes. Only those with little understanding of the situation come to precise conclusions. Those who have true understanding make frequent and wise use of weasel words like, "approximately," or "supposedly," or, "allegedly." It is impossible to come to a more precise conclusion than the least precise piece of data.
-- David G. Brown |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 176
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 6:33 pm: |
|
....aaahh...Thank you both...
" That is, the more you know the fuzzier the picture becomes. "
Truly.
warmest regards
dave |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Hi Paul. Interesting analysis so far. I will await for the completion of your summary before giving further comments. I will however like to briefly address some comments made by others.
Paul Lee mentioned: "first of all the Californian might have been in a locally stronger southern current than the Titanic." A different way of saying this is that the Californian may have been in a strong southerly current for a longer time. The Titanic was traveling about twice as fast as the Californian and thereby pass through a given region in half the time. The Californian was also stopped for about an hour before the Titanic stopped. So the time spent by the Titanic was a little less than 1/2 that spent by the Californian prior to Titanic stopping.
As far as the after collision movement of the Titanic is concerned, that is a small factor to consider but probably worth no more than about a mile, if even that much in my opinion.
As far as Boxhall's position was concerned we have very specific detailed evidence as to how he came up with that. It was based off of the celestial fix of 7:30 PM. How Smith came up with his initial estimate that was sent out in the first set of wireless messages is the greater uncertainty. They both were way off in longitude as we all know.
And finally, a celestial fix with multiple star sights would be accurate to within about a mile or so if no errors were made in the sight reduction calculations, especially a systematic error.
Got to go for now.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 50
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 2:29 am: |
|
Thank you all for your comments, analysis, and suggestions.
Let me start off with my good friend Captain David G. Brown. I purposely did not accept celestial or DR positions as precise. I cross checked the Californian's 6:30 pm DR with the Parisian's 5:15 PM DR with respect to the position of the three icebergs. The Parisian had them about 3 miles further south and three miles further west. Captain Lord estimated a speed of 11.85 knots and that was still three miles shy east of where the Parisian had the icebergs. I split the difference of the two ships DR of the icebergs which is a reasonable thing to do. I also indicated that Stewart could have been off two miles in his North star latitude fix. So I was purposely not trying to accept too great a precision for the celestial or DR positions. The conclusions I came to were based upon corroboration from both the Parisian and the Paula. So when two ships both come up with a position that is within three miles of the other, then I think we can be reasonably sure we are within a few miles of the actual position.
My conclusion actually puts the Californian five miles south of her DR position and 3.7 miles (5 minutes of longitude) west of it. Now one thing to keep in mind is that the Californian stopped somewhere. It did have an actual latitude and longitude right down to the minute. We know where the Titanic sank (plus or minus any drifting as it went from the surface to the bottom which probably wasn't more than half a mile) because the wreck site has been located. Based upon estimates of the current we can come up with a reasonable estimation for the collision site. Captain de Coverly came up with an estimation for drift between collision and sinking. None of us are saying he is infallible, but I think we all respect him as a master mariner.
Also we have the clue that the rockets bore SSE from the Californian by the standard compass. We can leave out the issue of whether another ship intervened or not for now. I think we are all agreed the rockets came from the Titanic. We have two witnesses for this compass bearing who are Groves and Stone. We are working on the premise that the total compass error would make this bearing SE true give or take a half a point or so. Now as Sam has correctly pointed out in a past post, the Californian has to be roughly on a line that bears SE from the Californian to the Titanic. If you move the Californian to the east then you have to move it to the south an equal distance to keep it on the line. SE is a 45 degree angle. My line runs parallel to Sam's as he anchors his at the wreck site, and mine is based upon an estimated collision point for the Titanic.
In conclusion, I took all the information I could find and came up with an estimated position for the Titanic when it struck and the Californian when it stopped. I then estimated drift for the Californian from stop time to Titanic collision time. When I say 18.44 miles that would be if I was exactly correct. Let me say that I would give it a range of 17.5 to 19.5 miles.
We know where the Titanic's wreck is. The Californian's brass patent log impeller would mark where the Californian actually stopped as it was cut off when she stopped. If it is not buried in the mud, it might be theoretically possible to find it. It would cost a fortune to search, and you have no debris field to mark out the area. It would definitely be a needle in a haystack operation. It would have to be a real wealthy person who was real interested in the question. Anybody friends with James Cameron? |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:02 am: |
|
To Sam and Paul Lee.
First, Sam, I did estimate a drift for the Californian from stop time to Titanic collision time. I estimated one mile south and a half a minute west (1/3 mile). That put her down to 41 59 N. I also allowed for one mile of southern drift while she was steaming. Remember Stewart came up with 42 05 N just under three hours from when the Californian stopped. Even if he was off by two minutes and they were really 42 03 N, that still leaves 1/2 mile south for a S 89 W course and 2.5 miles south for steering error and Labrador Current in only about 30 miles of running. So I think an estimated stop latitude of 42 00 N (5 miles south of DR) is a reasonable southern limit.
As far as the current in the place where each respective ship stopped, I think they were similar in speed. In his US testimony, Captain Lord said he came back to the lifeboats that were grouped together after he made a circle searching. These were the ones that the Carpathia didn't take on board. I'm estimating these lifeboats were a couple of miles south of the scant wreckage they could see. So if Lord left the lifeboats at 41 33 N, then I estimate the wreckage at about 41 35 N. That is about 11 miles of movement from where the Titanic struck in about 12 hours time. That indicates a pretty good current close to a knot. Now perhaps some of that wreckage movement was due to the wind that sprung up that morning. But overall that current doesn't seem all that slow down where the Titanic was.
As Paul Lee interestingly points out on his web site, the Frankfurt came through the ice from the west where she saw the Californian coming out from the east. Paul writes that the Frankfurt gave a latitude there of 41 34 N which is within one minute of the Californian's. That is a good cross check, and thanks Paul for the research.
So at this time, I still think my 42 00 N,
50 12 W stop position for the Californian is a reasonably good conclusion. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 52
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:18 am: |
|
This is for all.
As far as the Titanic possibly steaming north Senan Molony has an interesting analysis on page 291 of "Titanic and the Mystery Ship"
"We can see that it must be unreliable in the extreme. The possibility exists that the Titanic was brought back onto her course line. Her captain was back on duty and had the compass (binnacle) as guide. He could see immediately what direction was west (to New York). Why on earth would he leave a busy shipping lane to journey north into No Man’s Land, when the next major track, to Boston, was some 20 miles away?
How could he find help by leaving his well-worn path, and why would he suicidally choose to leave a latitude forming a key component of his ship’s distress call?"
The Titanic sent out a final latitude of 41 46 N because that is where they thought they were.
We know the boiler field is at 41 43.5 N. So if the Titanic collided at 41 46 N and steamed to 41 48 N that would take at least ten minutes as they only went half speed at most. It could have taken 15 minutes even as they were figuring out what to do. But let's be conservative and say 10 minutes to steam to 41 48 N. That brings us to 11:50 pm. So we have exactly 2.5 hours to sinking time at 2:20 am. So that is 4.5 miles of southern drift back to 41 43.5 N in 2.5 hours which calculates to 1.8 knots. That is way too fast. I can't believe that.
Now if the collision point was 41 44 N and she steamed up to 41 46 N, then that puts her at my estimated collision point (stop position). I did my estimate based upon the Titanic being at 41 46 N. That position is 18.5 miles from my estimated position for the Californian when the Titanic struck. Now 41 46 N to 41 43.5 N is 2.5 miles. About 2.5 hours from collision to sinking puts the current at 1 knot which is reasonable.
So if you run the Titanic up to 41 48 N, then you have to have an excessive 1.8 knot current to get her to the sinking position in time.
If you run her up to 41 46 N from 41 44 N then you are right back to the separation distance I estimated between the Californian and the Titanic, which is 18.5 miles.
Well friends, I'm hitting the hay now. Regards. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10585
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 4:46 am: |
|
>>Anybody friends with James Cameron?<<
To find that logline would probably take the resources of somebody like Bill Gates with no assurance of any result beyond a much smaller bank account. The seabed there amounts to a few hundred square miles of potential, and that's one mighty big haystack to try and find this "needle" in.
Since this thing is nowhere near as heavy as...say...a boiler, my bet is that it would be effected by any prevailing currents. Even if it was found, the datum would probably be no more precise then within a mile or two of where Californian actually stopped.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 177
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
Whew...well done Paul Slish. The sort of masterful analysis I enjoy reading and learning from - your work is well appreciated
And to everyone else - Michael, Samuel, David and The Doctor ( "Every planet's gorra North" ). I'm pure dead impressed, so I am, both by the depth of knowledge and, for once, the lack of rancour and polemic in this heated issue - it's just the sort of thing I was hoping for.
Thanks to all and very warm regards
dave |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:15 am: |
|
Indeed. Lets hope it continues! The only point that I feel should be debated is the heading of the Titanic after the collision. It has been argued that, with so many forces acting on the ship during the descent, that the heading of the bow section should not be considered an argument for the heading after the collision. Perhaps not. But consider the orientation of the two major pieces of hull. Perhaps its just me, but if the Titanic stopped heading westward, then, as she plunged to the bottom, the stern span round on its axis (something I can imagine), but the bow spun round in a big arc, going from westward to eventually head northward. Try throwing a paper glider to see what I mean. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
It is quite refreshing to exchange ideas and views on this subject with mutual respect for everyone. I have a number of comments to add to this discussion regarding what was presented so far by Paul Slish in his well thought out analysis, but other priorities are not allowing me the time to do so adequately at the moment. Maybe tonight. My clock was set back 3 hours last night because of temporary change of location westward. Some people call it a business trip.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 53
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:35 am: |
|
The April 15, 1912 voyage of the Californian to the wreck site.
At around 5:20 am ship’s time Captain Lord asked Chief Officer Stewart to rouse the wireless operator to inquire about a ship to the southward that had fired several rockets. Stewart awakened Cyril Evans the wireless operator and within a few minutes Evans was at his key and heard from the Mount Temple and then the Frankfurt. Eventually he received an official message from the Virginian around 6:00 am giving the SOS position of the Titanic. Captain Lord had already been plotting a course based upon the unofficial SOS position received from the earlier messages from other ships. Captain Lord describes the voyage at the USA Inquiry.
“Senator SMITH. How long did it take you to reach the scene of the accident, from the time you steamed up and got under way Monday morning?
Mr. LORD. From the time we received the message of the Titanic's position?
Senator SMITH. Yes.
Mr. LORD. (reading):
Six o'clock, proceeded slow, pushing through the thick ice.
I will read this from the log book.
Six o'clock, proceeded slow, pushing through the thick ice.
6.30, clear of thickest of ice; proceeded full speed, pushing the ice.
8.30, stopped close to steamship Carpathia.
Senator SMITH. Was the Carpathia at that time at the scene of the wreck?
Mr. LORD. Yes, sir; she was taking the last of the people out of the boats.
Senator SMITH. Then from 6 o'clock in the morning you were under steam in the direction of the Titanic for two and one-half hours?
Mr. LORD. Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. When you pulled alongside the Carpathia?
Mr. LORD. Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. At the scene of the wreck?
Mr. LORD. Yes, sir.”
Captain Lord also testified at the British Inquiry.
“7014. Did you about half-past 7 pass close to the "Mount Temple"? - I did.
7015. She was also stopped? - She was stopped.”
“7256. Only one other question. You came to the point where the "Titanic" had been reported as having foundered, 41º 46 N., if I rightly understood you, and 50º 14 W.? - Yes.
7257. How far from that point was the "Mount. Temple"? - I think she was very close to it. I should think she had been looking for the, "Titanic" boats or wreckage, or something, she was stopped there.
7258. You went on from that point? - Yes.
7259. In what direction did you proceed after that point? - I steered, as far as I recollect, about South or South by East true from there along the edge of the ice - the western edge of the ice.
7260. How, far did you go till you got to the wreckage? - I passed her somewhere about half-past seven - somewhere in the vicinity of half-past seven. I got there at half-past eight.
7261. What rate were you going at? - We were driving all we possibly could. The chief engineer estimates the speed at 13 1/2. I estimate it at 13.
7262. You were about an hour? - We were an hour.
7263. Had you also any observations to enable you to fix the spot where the wreckage was found? - I had very good observations at noon and that afternoon.
7264. How long did you remain on the spot where the wreckage was? - We arrived at half-past eight - 11.15.
7265. Can you give us your noon observations? - Yes; 41.33 N. and 50.9 W.
7266. That is your noon position? - That is my noon position on the 15th April.”
“7401. (Mr. Dunlop.) After 7.30 had you to navigate through the field ice again? - Yes, I ran along till I got to the "Carpathia" bearing north-east and then I cut straight through the ice at full speed.
7402. From 7.30 to 8.30? - We were not going through ice the whole of that time. We were running till it must have been about eight.”
Here is the summary. The Californian started steaming at 6:00 am and made it the two to three miles through the icefield by 6:30 am. She probably made a mile or so of southern progress. She then sailed along he edge of the ice field and reached the Mount Temple about 7:30 am. This gives about another 13 miles of southern steaming. The Californian then steamed south by east for another half hour. This gives about another 6 miles southward. The she turned to port and headed straight for the Carpathia bearing north-east (compass). Captain Rostron testified the Californian bore WSW true from him about 5 to 6 miles distant. This leg would bring the Californian back up about two miles north. So we have a total north south distance between the Californian and the Carpathia of about 18 miles. The Californian arrived at the Carpathia’s side about 8:30 am. The Carpathia was taking the last of the people out of the boats. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 54
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:42 am: |
|
The April 15, 1912 voyage of the Californian to the wreck site (continued).
Chief Officer Stewart (British 8823, 8826) corroborated the 8:30 am arrival of the Californian at the Carpathia.
Wireless operator Cyril Evans also corroborated the 8:30 am arrival time. As an employee of the Marconi Company he was rather an independent witness.
“9148. (Mr. Lewis.) I will defer that, as I understand another Witness will be called. (To the Witness.) When you approached the "Carpathia" did you find any difficulty in getting into communication with her? - Yes.
9149. You tried to communicate did you? - Yes, but I heard him say this; he said that he had picked up twenty boat loads, I think it was.
Examined by Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS.
9162. When Mr. Stewart came to your cabin was your ship moving? - No.
9163. How soon after he came to your cabin did your ship start moving? - Ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, I think.
9164. Did he say anything to you about a ship being to the southward, would you find out what she was? - No, not to my knowledge.
9165. How soon did you get into touch with the "Carpathia"? - I did not get her until I got nearly alongside of her.
9166. What time was that? - About half-past 8, I think.”
Captain Rostron is certainly an independent witness. The following was put to him at the British Inquiry.
“25550. (Mr. Bucknill.) Perhaps I had better read it and ask him if it is correct. (To the Witness.) On the 4th June did you make an affidavit in New York? - Yes.
25551. Did you say then: "I approached the position of the "Titanic" 41.46 N. L., 50.14 W. L. on a course substantially N. 52 W. (true), reaching the first boat shortly after 4 a.m. It was daylight at about 4.20 a.m. At 5 o'clock it was light enough to see all round the horizon. We then saw two steamships to the northwards, perhaps seven or eight miles distant. Neither of them was the 'Californian.' One of them was a four-masted steamer with one funnel, and the other a two-masted steamer with one funnel. I never saw the 'Mount Temple' to identify her. The first time that I saw the 'Californian' was at about eight o'clock on the morning of 15th April. She was then about five to six miles distant, bearing W.S.W. true, and steaming towards the 'Carpathia.' The 'Carpathia' was then in substantially the position of the 'Titanic' at the time of the disaster as given to us by wireless. I consider the position of the 'Titanic,' as given to us by her Officers, to be correct." You swore that? – Yes”
Captain Rostron states he first saw the Californian about 8:00 am and five to six miles distant bearing W.S.W. true. That would correlate with about an 8:30 am arrival time.
Only Third Officer Groves gives a different arrival time.
“8351. (Mr. Rowlatt.) Did you reach the "Carpathia"? - We did.
8352. What time did you reach the "Carpathia"? - I think it would be about 7.45.”
This writer is old enough to remember when watches had to be wound by hand. They would begin to lose time rapidly as they wound down. Perhaps Groves innocently forgot to wind his watch and that is why his time is 45 minutes behind the others.
There is one other issue the writer recalls reading from another source. He can’t remember the source exactly. The source suggested that the Californian took considerably longer than 30 minutes to cross the icefield from 6:00 am. Therefore the north south distance to the Carpathia was considerably reduced.
There is a witness who refutes this contention, and interestingly enough he was not favorable toward Captain Lord. It is none other than Ernest Gill. He testified in the USA.
“I knew no more until I was awakened at 6.40 by the chief engineer, who said, "Turn out to render assistance. The Titanic has gone down."
I exclaimed and leaped from my bunk. I went on deck and found the vessel under way and proceeding full speed. She was clear of the field ice, but there were plenty of bergs about. “
Gill said about the same thing in England (British 18165-18169).
Notice Gill was awakened at 6:40 am, leaped from his bunk and was probably on deck within a few minutes. He states the Californian was clear of field ice and was already proceeding full speed. Now it would take several minutes to get up to full speed from half speed (icefield crossing speed), so it is reasonable to deduce that the Californian cleared the icefield by 6:35 am by the latest. I will also be conservative and allow the Californian turned to port and headed to the Carpathia at 7:55 am and not 8:00 am.
These two allowances would reduce the north-south distance by about two miles to 16 miles. I will knock off another mile as the Californian was probably steaming SE true along the western edge of the ice down to the Mount Temple. That still gives us a minimum 15 mile north-south distance between the Californian and the Carpathia. This closely agrees with our thirteen mile north-south distance (18.5 miles northwest to southeast total distance) between the Californian and the Titanic. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 8:29 am: |
|
ISTR that the Californian stopped for an unknown time at about the time she saw the Mount Temple. I think this was said at the Board of Trade Inquiry, |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 55
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 3:41 am: |
|
Greetings Paul Lee,
Both Third Officer Groves and Captain Lord in their evidence indicated the Mount Temple was stopped. Groves never said anything about the Californian stopping. In fact he states she continued on her course after Groves examined the Carpathia with his telescope.
"8336. It was because of the disaster to the "Titanic" that this vessel was flying her house flag half-mast? - Yes.
8337. What did your vessel do then? - We continued on our course for a little time after I had told the captain she had a red funnel with a black top and the house flag half-masted, and the next thing that was done we starboarded.
8338. You made straight for her? - We made practically straight for her."
Here is Lord.
"7014. Did you about half-past 7 pass close to the "Mount Temple"? - I did.
7015. She was also stopped? - She was stopped"
Lord again.
"7256. Only one other question. You came to the point where the "Titanic" had been reported as having foundered, 41º 46 N., if I rightly understood you, and 50º 14 W.? - Yes.
7257. How far from that point was the "Mount. Temple"? - I think she was very close to it. I should think she had been looking for the, "Titanic" boats or wreckage, or something, she was stopped there.
7258. You went on from that point? - Yes.
7259. In what direction did you proceed after that point? - I steered, as far as I recollect, about South or South by East true from there along the edge of the ice - the western edge of the ice.
7260. How, far did you go till you got to the wreckage? - I passed her somewhere about half-past seven - somewhere in the vicinity of half-past seven. I got there at half-past eight.
7261. What rate were you going at? - We were driving all we possibly could. The chief engineer estimates the speed at 13 1/2. I estimate it at 13.
7262. You were about an hour? - We were an hour.
Lord speaks of passing the Mount Temple and speaks of his rate being 13 or 13 and 1/2, "driving all we possibly could."
Later one question by Robertson Dunlop was put to Lord.
"7399. (Mr. Dunlop.) Your Lordship will see they first of all cut through three miles of field ice. (To the Witness.) Then at 6.30 you steered a southerly course and passed the "Mount Temple" and stopped at about 7.30? - Yes.
It is possible that Lord misunderstood the question and was referring to the fact that the Mount Temple was stopped. He had said Mount Temple was stopped earlier in his evidence.
Or perhaps the secretary incorrectly supplied the word "and". It possibly should have read
"passed the "Mount Temple" stopped at about 7.30? - Yes."
Because right after this he refers to steaming from 7:30 to 8:30 am. If Californian had stopped for any length of time, how could Captain Lord refer to steaming for the entire 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. period?
7400. Was there another vessel near the "Mount Temple"? - There was a, two-masted steamer, pink funnel, black top, steering north down to the north-west.
7401. (Mr. Dunlop.) After 7.30 had you to navigate through the field ice again? - Yes, I ran along till I got to the "Carpathia" bearing north-east and then I cut straight through the ice at full speed.
7402. From 7.30 to 8.30? - We were not going through ice the whole of that time. We were running till it must have been about eight.
Lord hear is indicating movement for the whole period from 7.30 to 8.30. The "running" refers to steaming south or south by east along the western edge of the icefield until about 8.00 a.m. The Californian turned to port and headed straight to Carpathia. Captain Rostron saw her shortly after she turned.
So having studied the overall context, I don't think the Californian stopped at the Mount Temple. Californian was "driving all we possibly could."
Best wishes |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Greetings all. Finally back from the opposite coast and getting a chance to catch up with things.
I agree with Paul Slish's assessment regarding question 7399 and the wording. Lord was agreeing that the Mount Temple was stopped, not that he had stopped. However, I would be very careful in taking everything that Lord said as being absolute, especially about the times of certain events. It is quite clear that Lord was not being very precise because they probably did not take notice of the clock all the time. For example Lord used words like, "I must have passed that position I should say about half-past 7." And we see this in other places as well. These estimates got were written into their log later on.
Even Rostron was not being very precise on matters such as time. For example, "At 8 o'clock the Leyland Line steamer Californian hove up, and we exchanged messages. I gave them the notes by semaphore about the Titanic going down, and that I had got all the passengers from the boats; but we were then not quite sure whether we could account for all the boats." At some other point Rostron says, "The first time that I saw the ‘Californian’ was at about eight o’clock on the morning of 15th April. She was then about five to six miles distant, bearing W.S.W. true, and steaming towards the ‘Carpathia.’ The ‘Carpathia’ was then in substantially the position of the ‘Titanic’ at the time of the disaster as given to us by wireless. I consider the position of the ‘Titanic,’ as given to us by her Officers, to be correct."
Now if we look elsewhere we find other time estimates. For example the much often quoted "I think it would be about 7.45" time of 3/O Groves, who freely admitted "the time is only approximate" when he was being pressed for an answer. There is one other source that may help, and that was James Bisset on the Carpathia. According to what he wrote, "When I took over the watch on the bridge of the ‘Carpathia’ at 8 a.m., the stranger was a little more than a mile from us, and flying her signals of identification...Now she steamed up to within half a mile from the ‘Carpathia’ and stopped. An officer, on the wing of her bridge, using hand-flags, signaled, “What’s the matter?" Now this would be a well marked time event because at 8:00 AM Carpathia time, they struck 8 bells and Bisset took over as OOW from Chief Officer Hankinson. As he assumed the responsibility as OOW he noticed the Californian somewhat over a mile away. Remember what Rostron said, "At 8 o'clock [there was no "about" in this statement] the Leyland Line steamer Californian hove up, and we exchanged messages."
So what and who do want to believe? Was it 7:45, 8:00, 8:30?
There is another time reference that can be applied to when the Californian came close the Mount Temple. We know from the PV log of John Durrant that the Californian must have come relatively close to the Mount Temple somewhere near 7:10 AM Californian time (05:20 NY time marked in the PV) because Durrant writes: “Signal MWL (Californian); wants my position; send it. We're very close.” The last remark is obviously a reference to the strength of the wireless signal received from the Californian. The two ships were exchanging positions and passed within a mile of each other according to Capt. Moore, and in agreement with what Groves' estimated. Too bad these positions were not recorded. Oh, by the way, the MT was stopped and had just took a prime vertical measurement which had to be at 10:05 GMT (6:55 AM Californian time) which showed their longitude was 50° 09.5'W. This would be a very accurate measurement.
So just what longitude was the Californian at just 25 minutes earlier when she cleared the ice on the western side and headed about south? Any theory of movement must take all of these considerations into account.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 57
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 3:30 am: |
|
Welcome back Sam,
The reason I wrote that I believe the Californian steamed SSE true toward the Mount Temple after clearing the ice is to account for the longitude difference. A 13 mile SSE run would bring her east about 5 miles which is about 7 minutes of longitude at that estimated latitude. 50 16 or 50 17 W gives about 3 miles from the estimated stop position of 50 12 W. That is enough westward distance to clear the icefield (2 to 3 miles wide where Californian crossed) and then change course to SSE true and pass the Mount Temple around 50 09 W. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
I'm not too sure myself. I know the accoustics in the Scottish Drill Hall were not very good, but maybe some other reporters transcribed the Lord testimony differently, or the same?
I don't see why Lord should be asked a question concerning the stopping of the Mount Temple? How could he know for sure what time she stopped? |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 498
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Paul
There are some Examples in Harrison's Book and Bristow's "Sinking The Myths" of accounts being transcribed differently by reporters. to what extent this happened, I'm not exactly sure.
as for Mount Temple being Stopped.I don't think he knew the exact time she stopped, but was simply giving the time he noticed her stopped. if anyone thinks I'm in error here please let me know.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 3:16 am: |
|
Paul and Jesse,
Both Captain Lord and Third Officer Groves said the Mount Temple was stopped at the time the Californian passed her. They would have no way of knowing when the Mount Temple stopped. You can tell a ship is stopped because she has no wake. Lord said they passed the Mount Temple about 7:30 am. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 3:17 am: |
|
Sorry if I have to use the formality of last names here, but with two Paul's what else can one do?
Paul Lee. For me it is quite clear that it was only the Mount Temple that was stopped, not the Californian. Paul Slish already mentioned about when Groves came up on deck and noticed the Carpathia was stopped on their port side a few miles off with its house flag at half mast. Groves also said he saw the the Mount Temple stopped just off his starboard bow about a mile and a half ahead when he took notice, and that she was very much closer than the Carpathia. He too makes no mention of his ship stopping by the Mount Temple, and why should they? Also Capt. Moore mentioned that the Californian passed his ship about a mile off and mentioned nothing of her stopping. He did not however state the time of when that passing happened.
Groves also confirms that the Californian had gone on for a little time before starboarding straight for the Carpathia. We also know from Rostron that the Californian approached from the WSW true. This means the Californian passed the latitude of the Carpathia and then came back up as she crossed the ice. The reason for this is that the western edge of the ice field ran NNW to SSE true (from Moore and Lord). Cutting across heading ENE true means she was heading perpendicular to the icefield to get across taking the shortest path through the ice. The ice field was about 5-6 miles thick down there (Moore). We also know Rostron said the wreckage was 2-3 miles from the field on the eastern side. That means the Californian had to travel about 7 to 9 miles to get to the Carpathia once she starboarded. And that's about 30 to 40 minutes steaming at 13 knots. The real question is when did she make that turn and at what latitude was she at?
Paul Slish. I had followed your analysis in the several postings you put up while I was away. I do have a few specific comments to make later on, but for now I'd like to get to the bottom line conclusions. Please correct me if I should happen to state something about what you said incorrectly. To begin, you came up with a result that placed the Californian between 17.5 and 19.5 miles from the Titanic when they were both stopped. I understand and was able to following the assumptions and reasoning you used to get that. The problem I have with that distance has to do with what Lord, Groves, Stone and Gibson all said about the stopped steamer that was between them and the stopped Titanic. Correct me if I am wrong, but they all put that steamer between 4 to 7 miles from the Californian. Lord, Stone, Gibson all described that the lights of that steamer as appearing as a tramp. Lord thought it was ship similar in size to the Californian. So if this ship existed and came between the two and was that distance from the Californian, then that same tramp steamer should have been seen from the boat deck of Titanic early on.
The reason is quite simple. A ship 4 to 7 miles from the Californian would therefore be a minimum of 10.5 to a maximum of 15.5 miles from the Titanic using your pair of numbers. The height of eye on the boat deck of the Titanic is about 65 feet above waterline. That means any part of that tramp steamer that was higher than 27 feet above its waterline should be visible from the Titanic, and that's using the maximum distance of 15.5 miles. That would include mast lights and sidelights. If it were a ship the size of Californian, her sidelight at 40 ft above waterline (from Lord) would be visible from the Titanic's boat deck out to about 17 miles.
But not only that, the Californian's two mast lights should have been easily seen from the Titanic at the distances you came up from 12:15 AM Californian time onward, when Californian's head was pointing ENE and the direction to the steamer was bearing "SSE dead abeam" as Stone put it. Was is?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 3:55 am: |
|
Here is another book review of "Titanic and the Mystery Ship"
"Another month, another Titanic book. But here's one that is definitely worth members acquiring.
This extremely well written volume... for the first time scrutinises every bit of available evidence..."
Numast Telegraph
Monthly journal of the National Union of Marine, Aviation, and Shipping Transport Officers (NUMAST)
The Numast Telegraph was awarded "Best Trade Union Publication" in the British Trade Union Congress annual press and PR awards, which attracted 116 entries from 31 unions. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 4:01 am: |
|
Another review of "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" coming.
Charles Haas (whom many will recognize as historian of the Titanic International Society) is even more enthusiastic about "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" than he was about "A Ship Accused", which he described as a "first-rate forensic analysis" - he is doing a review for the next issue of "Voyage." "Voyage is the magazine of the Titanic International Society. It will be interesting to see what he says. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 5:08 am: |
|
Sam,
I understand where you are coming from. Let's say the ship was 5 miles from the Californian and the Californian was 18 miles from the Titanic. That puts the tramp at 13 miles from the Titanic. On a clear night the stars were very visible. With over 4000 visible stars in the sky a ship at 13 miles wouldn't be easy to pick out from the stars. Also there was ice to the northwest and Captain Rostron saw plenty of icebergs some 100 to 200 feet high the next morning. They could have obscured the horizon at some points.
When Gibson was looking with binoculars in the direction of presumably the Carpathia's rockets at around 3:30 am he did not see the lights of any ship. He was specifically asked this at the British Inquiry. Stone and Gibson did not sight a steamer before 3:45 am when Gibson went below. Stone did not see it up to 4:00 am. Stewart only picked it out when he scanned an area with binoculars that Stone pointed out. Yet when daylight came in, Lord estimated the ship at only eight miles off. Eight miles off and Stewart only picked it out with binoculars. If it was 8 miles off at 4:00 am (about south said Stewart) and was on a westerly course at 12 knots then at 3:30 am she would be about 10 miles off bearing about SE X S. Yet Gibson is looking down in that general area with binoculars and does not pick out any ship's lights. If you want to say she is the Carpathia 8 miles south, then she is about 12 miles away at 3:30 am. Bisset wrote she went to half speed at 3:30 and then to slow before she stopped at 4:00 am (8 miles from the Californian). Backtrack 6 miles at S 52 E (reciprocal of N 52 W) and she is 12 miles away at 3:30 am. Yet Gibson is looking in that direction with binoculars and does not see any ship's light. Now I don't believe it was the Carpathia, but I am just doing this for illustrative purposes.
Another way to look at it is this. Let's say the stopped Californian was only 10 miles off from the Titanic. Then why did it take almost an hour (about 12:25 to 12:30 am) for anyone to spot her when she was practically dead ahead with all navigation lights burning? If she is heading NE and Titanic bears SE, then Californian is broadside to her. And yet Boxhall insisted until the end of his life that the ship was first seen as a light, then as it approached it resolved into two masthead lights, and then the side lights became visible, and then she turned to starboard and the red sidelight was visible. He finally estimated it at five miles off. At the British Inquiry and/or the later Ryan vs. Oceanic Steam Navigation Company court case all four surviving officers put the nearby steamer at five miles or less (see p. 264, "Titanic and the Mystery Ship").
Just because lights are above the horizon doesn't mean they are always going to be picked up.
The bottom line for me is that they didn't pick her up. It is possible they did not pick her up. That is what I think happened. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 5:14 am: |
|
Sam,
The actual estimated distances given by the Californian officers and the apprentice to the nearby ship were as follows.
Lord: 4 to 5
Stone: 5
Groves: 5 to 7
Gibson: 4 to 7
Putting it all together, I go with 5. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
It could have been a big ship a longer way off, or a smaller one closer. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Dammit, my WWW browser isn't working, so I can't check this on titanicinquiry.org. I'm having to rely on very old notes here, so if these are inaccurate- sorry!
I have the Mount Temple reaching the Titanic's CQD position at 4.30am, after first reaching ice at 3.25am. She then steered to SSE(T) to find passage through the ice. At 5 or 5.30am, she stopped and turned around heading North again.
At some point in the morning, she had a prime vertical sight of 50 9.5 W- and according to discussions on this board, this was about 6.45am. Captain Moore thought that the Titanic must have sank to the east of the ice field he was now skirting, which he estimates to be 5-6 miles wide.
Moore sights the Carpathia at 6.00am. Some time later (and I think in London, he said "shortly before 8am"?) Moore sees the Carpathia 8 miles to the east, and the Californian 8 miles to the north, passing from east to west. This must have been when the Californian was crossing the ice field, between 6 and 6.30am approx. I assume here that the Carpathia was due east of him, from what he says in America:
"Mr. MOORE. [The Californian] was then north of the Carpathia, and he must have been, I suppose, about the same distance to the north of the Carpathia as I was to the westward of her."
I can't find anywhere in the evidence that says that the Californian passed the Mount Temple, which heading north at this time, although maybe stopped. But if the above interpretation is true, then the Carpathia was abeam the Mount Temple. When Groves gets to the bridge of the Californian, he sees the Mount Temple at 6.50, abeam, 5 miles to the east. One of the vessels he sees is the Mount Temple, which was ahead of the Californian, a little on the starboard side, 1.5 miles away, and stopped in the ice. Of course, Groves times are approximate.
Captain Moore might have provided slightly incorrect data here, as the Carpathia would probably have been bearing somewhere about NE from him at the time. As my notes seem to say, both the Californian and the Mount Temple could never have been abeam of the Carpathia, with the MT heading northwards from a lower lattitude. She seems to have been moving slowly in the vicinity of the ice field.
If Californian was heading South, saw the Carpathia at 6.50 and eventually turned ENE to arrive at the latter at 7.30, as per Groves, she must have at some point passed very close to the Mount Temple, which seems a bit odd as this wasn't mentioned by anyone (indeed, if the trigonometry is right, the Californian must have passed right by the Mount Temple). But this does imply that the Californian turned to the Carpathia at 7.00am, and a 7.30 stopping time, assuming a distance of about 5.4 miles would give 10.8 knots, which sounds about right.
Also, if the MT was a little on the starboard side of the MT, which was in the ice, then the Californian too must have been in the ice at this time, rather than skirting the edges - unless the western edge of the ice field skewed westward at the MT's lattitude. MT's longitude may have been right, but I think her lattitude was further south than is assumed by researchers. The only alternative is that the MT turned around and started heading south again at some point, putting her south of the Caprathia's lattitude at at approx. 6.50 (as per Groves) or later on (according to Lord) |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:04 am: |
|
Interestingly, if Stewart, Stone and Lord did see the yellow-funnelled Mount Temple before they picked up news of the disaster on April 15th, 1912 via wireless, then it becomes a bit perplexing as to how the Carpathia wasn't seen, since the MT was undoubtedly further south of the wreck site's lattitude, and didn't start heading north until 5-5.30am
Also, Groves' evidence doesn't tie in with Captain Moore's evidence - "we are not to enter field ice under any circumstance" |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1238
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:06 am: |
|
Paul Lee:
quote:5.20. ‘Signals Californian. Wants my position. Send it. We are very close.’ [7:10 AM CT]
This is my ship [Mount Temple] and Californian, sir. When I get him to confirm my position, I ask him if he can give me his position. I understand he is cruising, because after we go up toward him he goes to the south and misses us, passes about a mile off, and then he gets where we came from. Then we go over the ground, and we have not seen anything of the ship [Titanic], and we think we must cruise on farther.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:09 am: |
|
Was that the wireless operator on the MT, Sam? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:25 am: |
|
Paul Slish:
quote:With over 4000 visible stars in the sky a ship at 13 miles wouldn't be easy to pick out from the stars.
“And then, creeping over the edge of the sea where the flash had been, we saw a single light, and presently a second below it, and in a few minutes they were well above the horizon and they remained in line!” This was from a lifeboat somewhere after those rockets were seen as the Carpathia was steaming up. Mast lights rising from the sea. I’ll let you estimate the distance.
quote:Stone and Gibson did not sight a steamer before 3:45 am when Gibson went below.
Not quite.
8886. Did you ask him whether he had seen anything else? - He said he thought there was a light to southward about 20 minutes to 4.
8887. And when he stated that, what did you do, if anything? - I looked and I could see a light to the southward.
8888. What was the vessel which was showing the light which you saw to the southward at 20 minutes to 4? - I saw the lights at 4 o’clock. She had two masthead lights and a few lights amidships.
8889. That was the light which the Second Officer, as I understand, had told you he thought he saw - the light to the southward at 20 minutes to 4? - Yes.
8890. He told you that at 4 o’clock, and then you say you looked at it and you picked up the light? - Yes.
8891. Was that the light of this four-masted one funnel steamer which you afterwards saw at daylight? - Yes.
quote:Yet when daylight came in, Lord estimated the ship at only eight miles off. Eight miles off and Stewart only picked it out with binoculars.
A question I was waiting for. The “yellow funneled” ship seen in daylight that morning. The one seen dodging about that caused Stewart to tell Lord that he though she may have lost her rudder. Mount Temple most likely, and only 8 miles away. Now as Moore comes back north later on he sees Californian cutting across the ice east to west. This puts the time between 6:00 and 6:30. He estimates that the Californian was about as far north as he was west of the Carpathia at that time. He obviously is giving general direction not precise bearings. We know the Carpathia was picking up boats, it was well after the sun came up by now, the wreckage was 2-3 miles from the ice field according to Rostron. The ice field was 5-6 miles thick according to Moore. Lord also agrees with a 5 mile thickness as he reported in a hydrographic office report filed days later. Want to make the distance 10 miles even 12 miles between ships? There is no way it was anywhere close to 18 or more miles.
quote:Then why did it take almost an hour (about 12:25 to 12:30 am) for anyone to spot her when she was practically dead ahead with all navigation lights burning? If she is heading NE and Titanic bears SE, then Californian is broadside to her.
Well you answered part of your own question. “Just because lights are above the horizon doesn't mean they are always going to be picked up.” When Stone came on deck Groves gave him a briefing which included that their own ship was swinging. At the time, 12:15 about, the Californian was heading ENE compass and the steamer was “dead abeam” on the starboard side bearing SSE by compass. But when Groves saw the steamer approach and stop he said his ship was pointing NE. And this makes sense since he noticed that his ship was swinging. If it had pointed up to NE but was constant pointing ENE he would not have said they were swinging slowly. Anyway, the arc of the mast and sidelights only extend to 2 points abaft the beam. The earliest that these lights could have been noticed is when the Californian was pointing about ENE and probably not before. Only the single stern light would have been visible earlier, and stern lights are generally lower power and more significantly, lower in height above water, maybe 30 ft on the Californian. Couple this to what I strongly believe is an 11-12 minute difference between clocks, and the earliest time that Californian’s lights would have been noticed is about 45 minutes after she struck ice.
Enough for now.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1240
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:29 am: |
|
No Paul Lee, it was testimony from Moore reading from Durrant's PV and given his story behind it.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
OK, Sam, thanks. I still don't have access to the WWW at the moment.
Mount Temple reached the Titanic's wreck site (roughly) after 4, and she was heading in a easterly direction, she then headed south, and then headed north. Didn't Stewart say that the ship he saw early that morning was heading in the same direction as the Californian at the time - i.e. west? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hi Paul Lee: What Stewart said about the steamer he saw at 4 AM was:
The Witness: “I looked to the southward and saw a light. On looking through the glass I saw two masthead lights and a lot of lights amidships, apparently a four-masted steamer. This was 4 a.m. I asked Stone if he thought this was the ship he had seen, and he said he did not think it was.”
Noticed he picked up the ship without glasses first and then looked at it with glasses to get more detail, just as I would expect any OOW to do. He does not say anything about the direction she was facing, but
8639. Then did you suppose that the steamer which you could see at 4.30 was the same steamer? - I thought she might have drifted back - that she had found that she could not get through the ice.
8640. (The Commissioner.) Now, think about what you are saying. Do you want me to understand that you thought it was possible that the ship which had steamed away after throwing up the rockets had drifted back and was there before your eyes?
The Solicitor-General: At half-past four?
8641. (The Commissioner.) In the morning? Do you want me to believe that?
The Witness: I thought she might have come back, or she might have known something about the other ship.
8646. Did you say drifted? - Yes, but I did not mean it in that sense of the word.
8647. You did not mean drifted back? - No.
8648. (The Commissioner.) What did you mean? - That she had come back.
8649. She had steamed back? - Yes.
We can only guess as to her heading at that time.
The MT arrived at the scene (not the CQD site) about 3:25 AM and cut his engines and then went slowly till about 4:30-ish when he was was forced to stop because of the ice field. He thought he was at the CQD position which of course he based on DR. He didn't find his true longitude till much later that morning. Moore did not move until after twilight began. We know this from Durrant's PV. At 4:50 AM Californian time, he wrote: ‘All quiet. We are stopped amongst pack ice.’ By 5:10 AM Californian time, he writes ‘We back out of ice and cruise around. Large bergs about.’ This is the time they were heading southward.
6963. Do you remember just before 5 o’clock a conversation with your chief officer? - [Lord] I do.
6964. About the steamer? - About this, which he said was a yellow-funneled steamer.
6965. What was it? - Do you mean the whole of the conversation?
6966. I only want the substance of it? - Well, I was conversing with him about the probability of pushing through the ice, to commence with. I was undecided whether to go through it or to turn round and go back, and we decided to go on, so I told him to put the engines on and stand by. He did so. Then he said, “Will you go down to look at this steamer to the southward?” I asked him, “Why, what is the matter with it?” He said, “He might have lost his rudder.” But I said, “Why? He has not got any signals up.” “No, but,” he said, “the second officer in his watch said he fired several rockets.” I said, “Go and call the wireless operator.”
We never hear anything more about that yellow funned steamer again. By the way, nautical twilight began that morning at 04:27 Californian time. That is when the horizon would just begin to become visible. Civil twilight began at 05:01 Californian time, about the time or slightly after when the MT was starting to head southward. The sun came up at 05:30 Californian time in that location.
Now what we know (using Californian time throughout) is that MT was stopped at 4:50 but was moving by 5:10. She was heading SSE true. Between 6:00 and 6:30 she heading northward because she saw the the Californian heading westward across the ice field. Also saw Carpathia off the the eastward. So being conservative and say the MT turned around somewhere close to say 5:45-ish when she came as far south as that other small steamer that preceded her, the one with the black funnel. And then headed back northward when she notice the Californian steaming westward say at 6:15 AM. And allowing full speed, say she went 45 minutes to south and 30 minutes back up to the north, the net distance is 3 miles south of where she was at 5 AM when she was stopped. What this all means is that that yellow-funneled steamer that Lord saw in the early morning twilight and said was about 8 miles southward of them when the Californian was stopped, was now about 11 miles southward of that point give or take a couple of miles. And at that same time the Carpathia was about as far west of the MT as she was south of the Californian according to Moore. You have a classic triangle here.
A minor point Paul. When groves said he saw the MT stopped in ice about a 1.5 miles ahead it doesn't mean he was saying she was in the ice field. Remember the Californian was stopped on the eastern edge of the ice field but was surrounded by loose ice all around.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
|
