Captain Lord and Ureremia

[Kareen Healey]

Previously, Californian's clocks had been 1 hour 50 minutes FAST of New York Time. After 5 minute set back, they were 1 hour 45 minutes FAST of NYT.
On Titanic, her clocks were 2 hour 2 minutes FAST of NYT. at Noon April 14. This means that if her clocks had been untouched before she hit the ice, her clocks would be 17 minutes FAST of the clocks on Californian. It also means that 11-40 pm on Californian was actually 11-57 pm on Titanic an she had been stopped for 11 minutes.

Thank you Jim for information which are always so interesting to me. However in my mind the question seems really simple (I am a real and totally, utterly, absolutely and completely a perfect dummy in Maths and logic !! lol!) but you have find a way to make me feel much more dummy (I'm kidding!) because I have not realized before that there is much more variable than I first thought.

Here is the way I did my calculation :

1) In the British Inquiry (BI) at the question 8936 (Cyril Evans) the Attorney ask to him :

"That means one would have to add 1 hour 55 minutes to New York time to get at your ship's time at the place where you stopped?"
And the answer was "Yes".

Moreover, in the BI, just under the question 16257, when Robert Finlay intervened he said that there was 2 hours 10 minutes between the Ship's time (I mean TITANIC) and New-York Time. [please, note that English is not my native language. Yes, I think I'm doing fairly well to manage English, but to my regret, there are still some subtleties I don't always understand. So if I am wrong in understanding that 2h10 is the difference between TITANIC's Time and New-York, please let me know]. But if I am right, that would mean that when TITANIC struck the iceberg, it was 11h40 (as we all know) on her ; in New-York it was 9h30 and on the CALIFORNIAN it was 11h15. Thus that means that there would be 25 minutes between the both ships.

My question is : why didn't you do that ? I concede that you are probably right (or should I say "surely right") but I want understand why : you are not relying upon the testimony of Evans and the one of Marconi ?

And for the other subject, I have found exactly where the article I brought here came from. At my surprise, it came from a scientific Review, the ones that are for specialists (physicians, psychologist, etc) and which have a review panel like for exemple the "Review of Psychological Journal" or "Journal of Historical Studies" etc. That kind of Review are not "Wikipedia" if you know what I mean.
The reference of this Article is : WYNER, Lawrence Michael., "Captain Lord Uremia", in Turkish Journal of Urology, June, 39, 2, 2013, pp. 131-135.

Here is the link : Captain Lord’s uremia

I propose that serious and scientific TITANIC's Researchers (like Samuel Helpern or other authors of books like "The Loss of RMS TITANIC" or "Sea of Glass") get in touch with the author of this Article for telling him the mistakes about TITANIC and have an exchange with him that could be so interesting about it. Generally, Researchers like to hear about their Articles, especially if there is some flaws in it. It is an occasion for learning and to my experience, university teachers like it.

Just an idea like that

 

[Jim Currie]

Thank you Jim for information which are always so interesting to me. However in my mind the question seems really simple (I am a real and totally, utterly, absolutely and completely a perfect dummy in Maths and logic !! lol!) but you have find a way to make me feel much more dummy (I'm kidding!) because I have not realized before that there is much more variable than I first thought.

Here is the way I did my calculation :

1) In the British Inquiry (BI) at the question 8936 (Cyril Evans) the Attorney ask to him :

"That means one would have to add 1 hour 55 minutes to New York time to get at your ship's time at the place where you stopped?"
And the answer was "Yes".

Moreover, in the BI, just under the question 16257, when Robert Finlay intervened he said that there was 2 hours 10 minutes between the Ship's time (I mean TITANIC) and New-York Time. [please, note that English is not my native language. Yes, I think I'm doing fairly well to manage English, but to my regret, there are still some subtleties I don't always understand. So if I am wrong in understanding that 2h10 is the difference between TITANIC's Time and New-York, please let me know]. But if I am right, that would mean that when TITANIC struck the iceberg, it was 11h40 (as we all know) on her ; in New-York it was 9h30 and on the CALIFORNIAN it was 11h15. Thus that means that there would be 25 minutes between the both ships.

My question is : why didn't you do that ? I concede that you are probably right (or should I say "surely right") but I want understand why : you are not relying upon the testimony of Evans and the one of Marconi ?

And for the other subject, I have found exactly where the article I brought here came from. At my surprise, it came from a scientific Review, the ones that are for specialists (physicians, psychologist, etc) and which have a review panel like for exemple the "Review of Psychological Journal" or "Journal of Historical Studies" etc. That kind of Review are not "Wikipedia" if you know what I mean.
The reference of this Article is : WYNER, Lawrence Michael., "Captain Lord Uremia", in Turkish Journal of Urology, June, 39, 2, 2013, pp. 131-135.

Here is the link : Captain Lord’s uremia

I propose that serious and scientific TITANIC's Researchers (like Samuel Helpern or other authors of books like "The Loss of RMS TITANIC" or "Sea of Glass") get in touch with the author of this Article for telling him the mistakes about TITANIC and have an exchange with him that could be so interesting about it. Generally, Researchers like to hear about their Articles, especially if there is some flaws in it. It is an occasion for learning and to my experience, university teachers like it.

Just an idea like that

Good day to you, Kareen.

First may I congratulate you on your command of English and for your kind words.

To answer your questions:

(1). Cyril Evans - It is complicated, but I'll try.
As you may know, ships clocks are adjusted to read 12 o' clock, Noon every day.
The time of Noon every day at any place on the earth, land or sea, is when the sun is exactly South or North of the observer.
The line of Longitude runs due North and South, and Longitude is measured from the Longitude at Greenwich, England.
15 degrees of Longitude equals 1 hour of time.
Thus if ship's Longitude at Noon is known when the sun is due south then time can be adjusted to be correct.
However, Wireless Operators did not use ship's time. Half way across from Europe they used GMT and then they changed to New York Time. There is a 5 hour difference between the two. They also had to conform to the normal ship routines so they had a clock showing the time on board. If it was not automatically adjusted they Operator did it manually.
The difference between ship time and New York Time quoted by Evans was equal to a Longitude of 46 degrees, 15 minutes West.
Captain Lord used a Difference of 1 hour 50 minutes when he stopped
That is equal to a Longitude of 47 degrees 30 minutes West which is 22.3 miles west of The Corner turning point...the approximate position of the Californian at Noon on April 14...when the sun was exactly due south.

It is popularly believed that ships correct their clocks at Noon so that they can be accurate. That is true, but not for the sake of good time keeping on board but because - if the chronometer (the special clock they navigate with) breaks down or fails, then they can use the ship's clock to navigate by.

(2) Sir Robert Findlay was totally mis-informed. The difference between New York Time and Titanic time when the sun was due south on April 14, was, by calculation, 2 hours 2 minutes, not 2 hours 10 minutes. Therefore at Noon on April 14, the difference between Titanic time and Californian time was 12 minutes.
However, both ships were sailing westward and their clock were to be set back every night at Midnight.
Titanic was to set hers back by 47 minutes.
Californian was to set hers back about 24 minutes.

I believe:
(1) That Titanic's clocks were set back 24 minutes about 2 minutes before she hit the iceberg and
(2) Since Californian stopped near to 50 West, her clocks were set back 10 minutes at Midnight so that they would be correct the next morning.
Thus, the differences between NYT and the time on these two ships was Titanic: 1 hour 38 minutes and Californian 1 hour 40 minutes respectively.

Evans was simply ( dare I say it?) behind the times

As for writing to the author of the Uremia article? Experience tells me that pointing out errors to most, if not all, Titanic and Californian "theorist" is like "spitting into the wind".

Have a nice day.

 

[Kareen Healey]

Hi Jim,

Thank you very much for your nice words. It's appreciated. For English, I try to improve myself everyday and I admit that TITANIC help me out a lot with it, considering that all information and books are in English. My best friend since 27 years is British (Yorkshire - Sheffield) and she helps me out too. I am fortunate that she likes History as well, because for the many times in a single day I ask her to explain to me something in English (grammar or syntax), if it wasn't for that, I'm pretty sure that I'd have join the TITANIC long time ago at the bottom of the Atlantic -- without the R.O.V if you know what I mean ! lol ! . But we are far from our topic.

By the way, I have had there is 2 years ago, as far as I remember, a kind of graphic representing a ship looked from a "bird point of view" with "starboard bow" ; "starboard shoulder" ; "port shoulder" etc. written at the right place on to the drawing (I don't know if I am clear, but I put an attach file here just to show you exactly what I mean).
I have lost it last year by mistake while cleaning my computer and I still regret it for it was so useful to me. I can't remember who gave it to me, and I was wondering if it was you that provided it to me and if so, if you still have it ? If so and you don't want to give it to me through here, then you can do it by email : [email protected]

Thank you very much and wish you a good day !

Kareen

 

[Steven Christian]

Sorry if I'm butting in on your question to Jim. But I was not familar with the terms port and starboard "shoulders" I had to go look it up and ran across this. It might help from looking at your drawing.

 

[Jim Currie]

I can well understand the confusion of non-seafarers with the sketches such the one posted by Steven (and me - I have to say). Such sketched are based on the assumption that the viewer has a basic knowledge.
In fact, some of the labels in Steven's sketch are directions relative to a part of a ship, some are positions relative to a part of a ship and others are actual parts of a ship. The word ship itself is a misnomer. Here's a wee sketch that might help. I don't have the original

Hope this helps Kareen (or is it Lili?)

 

[Steven Christian]

I can well understand the confusion of non-seafarers with the sketches such the one posted by Steven (and me - I have to say). Such sketched are based on the assumption that the viewer has a basic knowledge.
In fact, some of the labels in Steven's sketch are directions relative to a part of a ship, some are positions relative to a part of a ship and others are actual parts of a ship. The word ship itself is a misnomer. Here's a wee sketch that might help. I don't have the originalView attachment 74475 Hope this helps Kareen (or is it Lili?)

Yes thats much better Jim. Thanks. I was familar with every term on your diagram but the shoulder. I just don't ever recall hearing that term. I was never a ship driver but to you all that's probably a common term. But I'm going to cut myself some slack because my search engine didn't know what it was eithier. When I typed in "port shoulder" this came up...

 

[Kareen Healey]

Thanks a lot it will be very useful !

My real name is Kareen. The other name was a nickname that I use to use on other forum, but here I feel enough confortable to use my name. "Lili-marlene3945" was a wink to the World War II (1939-1945) which is my other passion, along with Titanic.

 

[Kareen Healey]

When I typed in "port shoulder" this came up...

If moderators are becoming not very happy about the topic, you could reassure them and invite them for the supper : a recipe of marinated pork 108 years of age, in a sauce made of salted water, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and all you can think about ! lol!

 

[Steven Christian]

If moderators are becoming not very happy about the topic, you could reassure them and invite them for the supper : a recipe of marinated pork 108 years of age, in a sauce made of salted water, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and all you can think about ! lol!

They would have to settle for BLT's and beer.
Lili-marlene..as in the WW1 & WW2 song?
I'm glad you found Jim's diagram useful. I did. And learned something new. But I'm not sure if that applies to all ships...the "shoulder" I mean.

 

[Jim Currie]

They would have to settle for BLT's and beer.
Lili-marlene..as in the WW1 & WW2 song?
I'm glad you found Jim's diagram useful. I did. And learned something new. But I'm not sure if that applies to all ships...the "shoulder" I mean.

You are correct, Steven, the word "shoulder" was a simile used at sea when I was a lad. I don't think you will find that description in a Ship Building Manual. Well spotted.

PS Having lived through WW2 I remember it very well.

 

[Steven Christian]

You are correct, Steven, the word "shoulder" was a simile used at sea when I was a lad. I don't think you will find that description in a Ship Building Manual. Well spotted.

PS Having lived through WW2 I remember it very well.

Thanks for the reply. Yes a lot of the older terms for many industries are not used anymore. I've been reading thru some of the old International Marine Engineering papers from the turn of the 19th/20th century. Lots of stuff I've never heard of before but am impressed on the technical knowledge they had back then. Especially since they did it all on paper and manual calculations.

 

[Jim Currie]

Thanks for the reply. Yes a lot of the older terms for many industries are not used anymore. I've been reading thru some of the old International Marine Engineering papers from the turn of the 19th/20th century. Lots of stuff I've never heard of before but am impressed on the technical knowledge they had back then. Especially since they did it all on paper and manual calculations.

Hi Steven,
It might surprise you to learn that I do not use my computer when re working navigation problems concerning the Titanic story. I still have my 70-year-old tables and use them, the same formulae and paper in in exactly the same way as did Smith, his officers and the officers of all the ships involved in the Titanic saga.

 

[Steven Christian]

Hi Steven,
It might surprise you to learn that I do not use my computer when re working navigation problems concerning the Titanic story. I still have my 70-year-old tables and use them, the same formulae and paper in in exactly the same way as did Smith, his officers and the officers of all the ships involved in the Titanic saga.

Its good that you can keep those skills alive. I understand in a way what your saying. I often have to use the older ways of doing things when I restore older machines. Old manuals and procedures and in some cases making/modifing tools you can't find anymore. But the one thing the computer is good for is tracking down parts. I don't think I could have completed my last project without it. Just curious...do you ever break out your old sextant and take a sighting?

 

[Jim Currie]

Its good that you can keep those skills alive. I understand in a way what your saying. I often have to use the older ways of doing things when I restore older machines. Old manuals and procedures and in some cases making/modifing tools you can't find anymore. But the one thing the computer is good for is tracking down parts. I don't think I could have completed my last project without it. Just curious...do you ever break out your old sextant and take a sighting?

Nope! Had 2 of them and they were very old. All my work after 1974 was done witn GPS, Stoped even using that 16 years ago

 

[Kareen Healey]

They would have to settle for BLT's and beer.
Lili-marlene..as in the WW1 & WW2 song?
I'm glad you found Jim's diagram useful. I did. And learned something new. But I'm not sure if that applies to all ships...the "shoulder" I mean.

Yes that's for the song and obviously my other History's hobby along with TITANIC : the Second World War. I'm trained as a Historian and History is a part of me. I risk myself to answer your question : a friend of mine, who is a former Captain and who had been Master of many wooden built Schooners with steam Engines (That's him who built 3 wooden's TITANIC : one of 4 feet long ; one of 9 feet and a last one of 12 feet -- and he is teaching me how to do it) and he told me that he did used those terms like "shoulder" etc. In French he used "épaule" for Shoulder ; "hanche" which has no equivalent in English because that would be "hip" but I never heard about "hip" in Ship's orientation. Take Care !

PS to all : is someone could be able to provide me an Article titled something like "Your Answer does not please me". It is an Article about Lord Mersey, and I would like to read it so much ! The title here is not exactly the same, but it looks like it at 90%, therefore one could easily recognize it in spite of the fact that is not literally the good one. Thanks !