Froude analysis of the sinking

[Paul Lee]

A few days ago I was reading that a mathematical study of falling leaves has led to a way of analysing what happens when ships sink (I think they mean on the way to the bottom)....ISTR this invoked a constant called the Froude number. Has this kind of analysis and study been applied to the Titanic?

Best wishes

Paul

 

[Alicia Coors]

Froude - is he a passenger?

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

If you drop a 10.7" Titanic off a 12½' ladder, the bow and stern pieces will land within a foot of the boilers. It will be interesting to see what the Froude analysis reveals.

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

When Titanic submerged, as with the falling leaves analogy, she drifted with the currents to settle on the ocean floor 13 miles east. (Reference my book p.180-182)

 

[Samuel Halpern]

How long would it take the two sections of the ship to sink to the bottom 15,000 ft below? How long would take to drift 13.5 NM? Also the debris field items would have had to follow the same general path. (Center of boiler field at
41*43'32''N by 49*56'49''W; CQD position at 41*46N by 50*14W.) [see Ballard.] The attached diagram is drawn to scale.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

What could have caused the wreck to move so far? Is the current strong enough or what?

 

[Parks Stephenson]

<font color="#000066">When Titanic submerged, as with the falling leaves analogy, she drifted with the currents to settle on the ocean floor 13 miles east. (Reference my book p.180-182)

Is that where you claim that Titanic never broke apart while she sank but was instead rent asunder and tossed about on the ocean floor by a tidal wave caused by a submarine earthquake?

Parks

 

[Paul Lee]

Marmaduke,
Do you deliberately publicise these atrocious assertions to rile me?

And no I will never read your book now.

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Paul:

Do you deliberately publicise these atrocious assertions to rile me?

Do you have the necessary intelligence to determine what is correct?

And no I will never read your book now.

My bet is, you will!

 

[Paul Lee]

Yes, I think that I do have the necessary intelligence to determine what is and is not likely. Unlike you, this does not involve coming up with bizarre theories or dismissing evidence simply because it does not not fit in with your pre-determined conclusions.

As for reading your book, I would rather castrate myself with rusty cheesewire, but horses for courses

 

[Paul Lee]

Hi Samuel,
Nice graphic of the "hypothesis" - the Titanic equivalent of the Single "Magic" Bullet Theory.

Just for info, the depth of the wreck is about 12,500 feet, but your diagram eloquently describes just how inane the "drift" idea is.

Best wishes

Paul

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Is that where you claim that Titanic never broke apart while she sank but was instead rent asunder and tossed about on the ocean floor by a tidal wave caused by a submarine earthquake?

You are absolutely correct!

Collins

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Paul: Thanks for the correction to the depth. In my haste to draw out the figure I wrote 15,000 but actually intended to write 13,000. Just a typo. The scale of diagram is however correct since I converted everything to nautical miles.
(13,000 ft= 2.1 NM). So the same picture still applies.

By the way, Ballard estimated about as little as 6 minutes for the major hull pieces to reach the bottom, give or take a few.

On completely separate note, I tend to keep an open mind on things. I also respect the work and opinions of others, even is I disagree with what they may present. I also like to test various theories against analysis and other evidence. If something does not fit, I try to just point out where things don't add up. It serves no good to resort to insults and other name-calling remarks that serve no useful purpose. That is very counter productive. It is best to just present results and let others draw their own conclusions. The best theories are only as good as the assumptions that they are based on. It is sometimes tempting to accept a theory as fact, or reject a theory as impossible, but the best we can all hope for are theories that can be tested and can be shown to fit (or not) most (but not necessarily all) of the available evidence.

Cheers,

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

How long would it take the two sections of the ship to sink to the bottom 15,000 ft below?

There is no conclusive evidence, nor is there any reason to believe, that the Titanic broke in two before she sank. Second Officer Lightoller emphatically denied it. "It is utterly untrue" he told the British enquiry, "the ship did not and could not have broken in two" he watched her descent "keenly the whole time." Third Officer Pittman, too, denied that the after-part broke off; he was "bvarely 100 yards away," he testifies, and kept his eyes upon her as she went down.

Naval Architect Edward Wilding did not believe she broke in two.

20258. We have heard something in the evidence about an apparent fracture of the
whole ship as she foundered, which is rather why I was going a little minutely
into this part of it. Do you believe that happened? - Not in the least. I have
tried to make an approximate calculation, and I feel quite sure it did not
happen.

Harland & Wolff Naval Architect C. Hackett, does not believe Titanic broke in two.

 

[Mike Anderson]

Why then, exactly, why would the ship be resting on the bottom in two halves? I can't see how the hull could have survived the forces inherent to the generally accepted sinking model (prior to split), only to have cleanly broken in two while (more-or-less) in a state of freefall. Regarding Lightoller's testimony, I would imagine he was a bit preoccupied during the ship's final moments, what with crashing funnels, general panic, freezing water and all that. On a side note, I would doubt the impartiality of Mr. Wilding's testimony.

Seems to me you've got a theory based on a small minority of the testimony. It manages to completely ignore what solid facts there are.

 

[Alicia Coors]

Not only was Lightoller preoccupied, he was in total darkness without even his night vision adapted. The best he could have hoped to see would be the silhouette of the ship against the background of stars, and from his angle of view (forward and to portside) he probably wouldn't have been able to make out anything going on aft anyway. The stern would have broken away from him while hidden from view by the bow section.

Edward Wilding was even further away.

I'll go with the finite element analysis done by Gibbs & Cox. The ship broke. Get over it.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

<font color="#000066">Why then, exactly, why would the ship be resting on the bottom in two halves?

Mike,

As a suggestion, I would phrase your question thusly: If the hull sank intact, why then would the damage observed in the stern section of the wreck be of such different character than that observed in the bow section?

But, it serves no useful purpose to ask these questions...like its predecessors, this argument too will produce no uncontested conclusion. The only difference from similar arguments in the recent past being that where personal experience was previously used to discredit eyewitness testimony, this argument looks to be using eyewitness testimony to discredit forensic evidence.

Parks

 

[Michael F. Koch]

Not to mention, numerous passengers said she broke up and only one or two said she didn't. Plus, why would the crew say she broke up? That wouldn't look good for the company would it?

Michael Koch

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The argument regarding the ship breaking in two would be interesting if the wreck were never discovered. Given what we could see, there is only one answer to this. It broke in two! There were many survivors who were not in a good position to see the breakup. Apparently, many heard the breakup but they did not know what they heard, thinking boilers crashing through bulkheads, etc. There were others who did see it, but not many wanted to believe this could happen. This is one issue that should no longer be an issue.

 

[Michael F. Koch]

Agreed!

Michael Koch

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Apparently, many heard the breakup but they did not know what they heard, thinking boilers crashing through bulkheads, etc. There were others who did see it, but not many wanted to believe this could happen. This is one issue that should no longer be an issue.

I do not agree. Apparently, many believe Titanic collided with an iceberg! On the other hand , there are many professional mariners, who are convinced she did not.