Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jim Currie, post: 109334, member: 144215"] Absolutely Sam! However, this was not a homogeneous mass of metal and salt water with an sg of 1025. I presume some of the boilers were empty. The others would have 1000sg fresh water in them. The bunkers would have plenty of coal in them and there would also be empty and partially full fresh water and ballast tanks. Additionally there would be miles of , admittedly small bore , sealed piping. Add to this fabrics and wood and you see what I'm getting at. Initially all the gubbins I mentioned would have inherent buoyancy. As the pressure of depth took over this would be completely lost. Regarding final sea-bed attitude; how do you view this theory? If the hull and parts returned to an almost even keel situation under the influence of gravity it would come under the influence of the current in the same way as does a stopped ship when afloat. My experience of a stopped ship in a wind and or current is that it will try to align itself at right angles to the major influence i.e. beam on. As you know, I believe the ship was heading west when she sunk. If you will, imagine this not completely broken vessel on an almost even keel, heading west; sinking bodily Under the influence of a southerly trending current, a floating ship would remain on an east west line. However, in a current, the hull see-saws back and forth. If this happened with Titanic it is conceivable that shortly after she went under, the excess see-sawing finally caused the hull to break. The stern section turned to port and the bow to starboard. The bow because of its greatest mass was toward the mid-ship. The stern in much the same way. Thus the parts descended to the sea bed slowly oscillating but with the broken ends slightly pointing downward. This would account for where some of the debris was found and why they now rest in opposite directions. Sound Steven Spielberg-ish? Cheers, Jim Jim [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?