Jeremy, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the whole problem is that at this point, the bow was completely flooded solid. Something like that would be about as bouyant as a rock and behave in the same manner. it would be a one-way express elevator.
The bow was completely flooded. But isn't it generally accepted that part of the reason that the stern is in the condition that it's in is because of the air still trapped inside the hull exploding out due to the pressure?
Could it be that the stern floated just below the surface with air still trapped inside and as it burped out, the stern continued to sink? When the pressure was too great, the air was completely expelled and it finished it's descent.
>>Could it be that the stern floated just below the surface with air still trapped inside and as it burped out, <<
Nope. By the time things got this far, the stern had all the watertight integrity of a bucket used as a target for a machine gun, and it flooded just as rapidly. The spaces which retained air were very few...not enough to sustain nuetral bouyancy...and the water pressure only compressed it as it went down.
Mike-I still have a problem with this solid flooded bow. There's has to be some air in there somewhere, at least for a while, trapped under the hatches and the corners of the canted deck itself. Clearly a hold that has an open unwatertight top is useless. Where did it bleed off to, and how?
I'm sure that there was SOME air. I don't think anything is completely flooded when it sinks. But it would gradually escape from the wreck.
Air bubbles were escaping from the Andrea Doria for some time after she sank.
And, Michael...fair enough. The picture that was painted by Ballard was that there was a mass expulsion of the air still in the stern, and it basically exploded. Hence, part of the reason for its current condition (well, that and a massive downblast of water from above).
To put it in technical terms, what Michael is saying is that the ship went from positive buoyancy to negative buoyancy. That is why people saw it going down as it left the surface. Once that happened there was nothing to stop it from getting to the bottom. To hover just below the surface, or at any other depth, would require a state of neutral buoyancy. On a submarine they achieve that by blowing a tank to a predetermined marked level. Because any trapped air in spaces would be compresses as the ship sank deeper, it's buoyancy would become even more negative increasing its speed of decent on the way to the bottom.
Wait a second, based on what I've read on this message board in the past, I thought that the ship, after *not* hitting an iceberg, floated completely intact, albeit under water from Boxhall's distress position to the position of the wreck today, only to be shaken apart by an underwater earthquake. You mean this isn't scientifically or physically possible? How disappointing. The eyewitness and forensic evidence of the ship breaking apart on the surface and debris raining down to its current position is just so mundane and boring in comparison... :0)