Boat deck resurfacing

[Dan Kappes]

I've seen this great video before in the earlier thread, which is also the original one I started last September and where I put that painting first.

The thread mentioned above is titled: Other books before the wreck was found that show an image of Titanic splitting in half? and is located in the Titanic Books forum.

 

[Dan Kappes]

Chris, Great observations about the inaccurate iceberg in the painting!

 

[Gram]

I'm not an expert on buoyancy or hydrodynamics, but I would think that the reasoning that the people situated on the bow boat deck felt the ship rising up could have been that when the ship was about to break, the water could have been lower down the boat deck, maybe nearer the Grand Staircase or first funnel? I remember on a previous thread someone cited an account by someone who said that the water was next to the first funnel when the ship broke in two. If that were the case, then, when the ship broke in two, the small amount of unflooded areas in the bow then would have caused the bow to begin to level out, which the people on it then might have interpreted as a shift upwards, and could have thought that it tilted back up, because of the sudden change in angle.

Again, just a theory.

 

[Kyle Naber]

I think the ship broke apart at a rather high angle. Lightoller described “a huge rumbling roar” when the ship was at an angle he had estimated to be about 60°. Of course the ship never reached 60° before the break, but the propellers would have at least been high up out of the water before the breakup.

 

[Dan Kappes]

Chris, here's a short film which also shows the Titanic sinking next to the iceberg.

Go to 12:35.

 

[mitfrc]

Here's a thought that occurs to me. If you have the weight of the flooded bow section cantilevering the stern upwards, when the keel fails and lets go, is it possible that the change in the Center of Gravity could cause a sudden forward rotation of the bow section?

In other words, keel section fails amidships, bow and stern are now functioning as two separate boats precipitously connected by shell plating around C-B deck level (if the Mengot "Hinge" theory is right) and the forces of gravity acting on the bow section shift dramatically. Suddenly the weight of the stern section is off its back and the CoG shifts forward in the bow section, causing a rotation where the flooded nose plunges and the semi-dry midships section snaps upwards, giving the illusion of the bow section rising as a whole.

That is plausible to a small but possibly perceptible extent on the deck. The stern of the bow, in short, rose, which was part of the bow section; I often think that the small number of people who said the ship broke in two and the bow rose aren't taking about a V-break but rather what you describe (which is literally the bow section rising, most of the quotes meet that definition), I've never looked hard at it to rule it out or not, though.

 

[Gram]

I think the ship broke apart at a rather high angle. Lightoller described “a huge rumbling roar” when the ship was at an angle he had estimated to be about 60°. Of course the ship never reached 60° before the break, but the propellers would have at least been high up out of the water before the breakup.

No, there was a simulation done in the documentary Titanic at 100: Mystery Solved that showed that the breakup happened somewhere between 19-23 degrees. I think that it was just Lightoller's angle of view that led him to see such a steep slope.

 

[Kyle Naber]

No, there was a simulation done in the documentary Titanic at 100: Mystery Solved that showed that the breakup happened somewhere between 19-23 degrees. I think that it was just Lightoller's angle of view that led him to see such a steep slope.

Oh I agree. I don’t think the ship reached 60°, but I can only understand Lightoller’s claims if the ship hadn’t broken apart until the first two funnels had collapsed. 23° can easily look like 60° if you’re in the right spot.

 

[Gram]

I see. Although, I think it could be possible that the second funnel collapsed before the water actually reached it. Bright sparks were seen coming from the top of the second funnel as it collapsed, so maybe it could've fallen because of some sort of explosion below decks?

 

[Kyle Naber]

I see. Although, I think it could be possible that the second funnel collapsed before the water actually reached it. Bright sparks were seen coming from the top of the second funnel as it collapsed, so maybe it could've fallen because of some sort of explosion below decks?

That’s possible. I’m not completely sure either way, though.

 

[Gram]

Here's some diagrams of what my theory might look like: (does not include falling funnels or lights going out)

Right before break: (2:17)

Right after break: (2:18)

Right before final plunge: (2:19)

 

[Kyle Naber]

This is the conclusion that Jeffrey Stettler made:

I think the bow would have been too far gone for it to settle evenly after the break.

 

[Gram]

Just out of curiosity, where are those diagrams? I'd like to look at them. Also, if that's the point of maximum stress, isn't it possible the ship broke before that? Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Kyle Naber]

Also, if that's the point of maximum stress, isn't it possible the ship broke before that?

That’s true. However Jack Thayer said that the second funnel had collapsed in front of him and then saw the break moments later.

The paper is called “Flooding and Structural Forensic Analysis of the Sinking of the RMS Titanic,” written by commander Jeffrey Stettler as a result of a two-year study of the wreck, the blueprints from Harland and Wolf, and the materials used to build the ship. Here’s a link:

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/attachments/study-titanic-pdf.39309/

 

[Gram]

That’s true. However Jack Thayer said that the second funnel had collapsed in front of him and then saw the break moments later.

Yes, but Thayer also said that when he jumped, he could see the crow's nest, which was submerged by the time the second funnel fell.