George Symons' "Top-Cant"?

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

A lot of vey high-level pontification here, lads. However, if all that was wanted was what Symonds meant, then you must view the word in light of the early 20th century. The work 'cant' used by George Symonds was not a nautical term but simply meant as The King's Dictionary of the day states: "an external angle; an inclination from a horizontal line; a jerk: to throw with a jerk: to tilt. "Cant" was not a marine expression.
However, I suspect the reason for this post was simply to air a theory.
No theory needed - a moderate understanding of ship construction will show that Titanic had an inherent weakness in hull design and there was a very obvious point in her hull where, if undue longitudinal stress was imposed, the hull girder would fail, and that is exactly what happened. No big deal, but a great deal of hot air.

The main reason was not to air a theory I wanted to understand it's true meaning and etc. True that I myself did in fact presented my theory, but it was my own understanding on the top-cant and I shared it and wished it to be corrected if ever my interpretation was wrong and so on since I've been studying on this for awhile and it's been a bit hard for it to go around and not knowing the meaning The internet did provide some info but I was unsure if the information is reliable...

also Thanks for giving another info especially on the Definition of the Top Cant! Thanks a lot Mr. Jim Currie and others!

 

[Samuel Halpern]

No theory needed - a moderate understanding of ship construction will show that Titanic had an inherent weakness in hull design and there was a very obvious point in her hull where, if undue longitudinal stress was imposed, the hull girder would fail, and that is exactly what happened.

You used the word "obvious," which may be for you and a few others here, but it is not so obvious to many other people, otherwise there would not be so much said or theorized about how the ship broke.

 

[Jim Currie]

You used the word "obvious," which may be for you and a few others here, but it is not so obvious to many other people, otherwise there would not be so much said or theorized about how the ship broke.

It very much depends on the reason for theorizing Sam. Keifer explained his reason very well.
The problem only arises when one or some of the "so many other people" you write about, argue their point with the few others here who are trained in the subject matter.
A ship is simply another manufactured item consisting of many items "stuck" together in a particular way. If you understand how they are constructed, you have a much better chance of discovering how they came apart. Hence the need for theorization, or its less educated relative - speculation - is greatly reduced.

 

[Titanicfan2013]

New member here.

During when titanic's keel was compressed, it had lost all it's strength. A broken keel would not be able to hold weight such as boilers or engines. The bottom of the ship was compressed during the breakup, bringing the heavy pieces OVER the broken keel. As a result the missing part of the engines + the boilers of Boiler Room 1 could have crashed and fell through the keel as the breakup happened, bringing all sorts of debris with them. The bow would then need to settle (point) downwards before going under. As the forward tower, aft tower, deckhouse debris etc all tried to keep afloat. All of that would certainly slow the bow down. even when the stern was getting pulled downwards the very end of it was staying in the same position relative to a pivot. Here are some images I made on scratch using someones model (Credit to Huntsman Wilson.)

 

[Titanicfan2013]

I consider the top-cant to just be the stern getting pulled down by the bow, as the currently buoyant stern slowed the bow down signifigantly.
This would go in line with my slow top-cant theory.

 

[Titanicfan2013]

I think in my opinion the definition of a Top-Cant is when the stern gets pulled up by the bow, with the bow letting go after the stern is pulled usually with a drastic change in the ships angle, but it does not mean it has to be sudden, it can be slow too.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I consider the top-cant to just be the stern getting pulled down by the bow, as the currently buoyant stern slowed the bow down signifigantly.
This would go in line with my slow top-cant theory.

Symon's was asked to explain what he meant by a top cant. This is the reply:
11511. A top cant? - You know what I mean to say, she took a heavy cant and her bow went down clear.

 

[Titanicfan2013]

Symon's was asked to explain what he meant by a top cant. This is the reply:
11511. A top cant? - You know what I mean to say, she took a heavy cant and her bow went down clear.

"She took a heavy cant..." Do we know what Symons's really mean't by heavy? Symons's could have mean't a drastic change in angle, but not as quick, as in opposition to the opposite? not saying your wrong, just stating my opinion.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

"She took a heavy cant..." Do we know what Symons's really mean't by heavy? Symons's could have mean't a drastic change in angle, but not as quick, as in opposition to the opposite? not saying your wrong, just stating my opinion.

It was about the amount of bend, not the speed of it. The bow dipped downward and disappeared. Here's the full account from an article I wrote:
>>>
Lookout George Symons was in lifeboat No. 1 about a 1/4 mile away from the ship when she sank. This is what he had to say before the British Wreck Commission:

"Her foremost lights had disappeared [under the water], and her starboard sidelight left burning was the only light, barring the masthead light, on that side of the bridge that I could see...You could not see her keel...You could just see the propellers...A little while after that we pulled a little way and lay on the oars again. The other boats were around us by that time, and some were pulling further away from us. I stood and watched it till I heard two sharp explosions in the ship. What they were I could not say. Then she suddenly took a top cant, her stern came well out of the water then...She took a heavy cant and her bow went down clear...Head down, and that is the time when I saw her lights go out, all her lights. The next thing I saw was her poop. As she went down like that so her poop righted itself and I thought to myself, ‘The poop is going to float.’ It could not have been more than two or three minutes after that that her poop went up as straight as anything; there was a sound like steady thunder as you hear on an ordinary night at a distance, and soon she disappeared from view."

Asked to explain some of this further, Symons said:

"Her head was going well down...her stern was well out of the water...It righted itself without the bow; in my estimation she must have broken in half...I should think myself it was abaft the after expansion plate...I should say it would be about abeam of the after funnel, or a little forward...I saw the poop right itself...then it went up and disappeared from view."
<<<

 

[Titanicfan2013]

The 2 explosions mean't that Titanic cracked when the water reached the bridge, probably by thermal stress. She bent, and then water entered the mid hull. Symons must have noticed, because he describes the Top-Cant as if it occurs before the breakup. the bow slightly increases upward in angle, and the 1st & 2nd funnel collapse in sync. The first top cant is slower, but signigantly faster than the ship before the breakup. then she breaks in half the second time. The stern collapses to port and sinks.

 

[Julian Atkins]

“Top cant” and “heavy cant” doesn’t mean anything to me in that context. “Cant” to me means ‘sloping’ or ‘at an angle’. ‘Cant’ of a road or railway track would be moderate.

However, if we look instead at Sam’s further quotes of Symons, then Symons’ description is perfectly clear as to what he perceived and recollected.

The “cant” reference (twice) seems to be irrelevant and misplaced and not what he went on to describe. I suspect that Symons didn’t know what “cant” meant, and misused “cant”. An aberration on his part and one easily made in the circumstances.

 

[Titanicfan2013]

New member here.

During when titanic's keel was compressed, it had lost all it's strength. A broken keel would not be able to hold weight such as boilers or engines. The bottom of the ship was compressed during the breakup, bringing the heavy pieces OVER the broken keel. As a result the missing part of the engines + the boilers of Boiler Room 1 could have crashed and fell through the keel as the breakup happened, bringing all sorts of debris with them. The bow would then need to settle (point) downwards before going under. As the forward tower, aft tower, deckhouse debris etc all tried to keep afloat. All of that would certainly slow the bow down. even when the stern was getting pulled downwards the very end of it was staying in the same position relative to a pivot. Here are some images I made on scratch using someones model (Credit to Huntsman Wilson.)

View attachment 114012View attachment 114013View attachment 114014View attachment 114015

This theory is outdated.