Ashley -- During the 1912 British Board of Trade hearings, one of the men who designed the ship testified. He was naval architect Edward Wilding. Based on the speed at which the ship flooded, he calculated that the opening in Titanic was equal to approximately 12 square feet. This number is still generally accepted.
Titanic was not "cut" by the iceberg. Instead, there was a failure of riveted seams. When these seams separated, seawater flooded into the hull. In some instances (Boiler Room #6 for example), there was the appearance of a long "cut." However, it was a seam separation that extended nearly 45 feet into the fifth boiler room.
There is a large "hole" in Titanic's starboard side as it rusts away on the ocean floor. This opening was most likely caused by contact with the ocean bottom. Some writers have speculated that the hole was a result of contact with the iceberg above the waterline. However, that theory doesn't fit the known dynamics of the collision.
Edward Wilding's famous "12 feet" calculation is probably the best estimate at the total area of the openings in Titanic's hull. Nonetheless, it is a sum of all the openings in the hull. That is, the iceberg damage did not extend in a straight line along the lower starboard hull. It was not continuous damage or a continuous "cut".
Nathan's comments are true for the conventional theories, but Parks Stephenson and David G. Brown have recently released the theory that Titanic was not sliced open by the berg, but instead ran over the ice and thus puncuring the bottom. This revolutionary idea is quite credible and I suggest that you read their report. I won't go into too many details though since I wouldn't want to misquote anyone and look stupid.
just a quick comment.the open area's letting in seawater was a combination of busted rivets and broken seams in the hull plates. total area was roughly the size maybe a bit smaller than a garage door single car that is
Maybe your right about the size of the area of the hole, but there again you could be wrong - 12 square feet doesn`t equate to a garage door. A 4 ft by 3 ft fridge door does.
Please remember there are young people reading this site regularly and because of this I would urge you to refrain from using bad language, if you feel bad language is required use eg. S**T or something - we all know what you mean!!
Don`t think I`m an old fuddy duddy, I`m an ex seaman and I can hold my own with anyone when it comes to bad language - (I learnt it from professionals).
I have removed Mr. Sparkmans most recent two posts from this thread for inflammatory remarks, they are safely deposited in safe place. If anybody has any questions please feel free to contact me through the board.
I watched a special on the Discovery Channel sometime back and a sonar scan that would show the hull under the mud, revealed that there was not a single hole as popular myth calls for, rather a few dozen small gaps described as being "finger width" in size where the ice deformed the plating stretching about 250 feet across the starboard bow at various heights. I dont know how accurate this information actually is, but it seems pretty credible tying in all of the theories and evidences.
If you where to contact the Discovery Channel, or the company that performed the scans about obtaining the information that they gathered you would be told that it either didn't exsist or that you couldn't have it. Several attempts have been made by hundreds of independent researchers, different Engineering and Piloting Organizations and all have been denied, using one of the above reasons.
This to my mind puts the side scans that the Discovery Channel (The DC is not known for getting anything nautical remotely correct) claims to have as useless. Because no other researcher has been granted access or the ability to review the material that they presented on there program.
Paul Matthias and his staff at Polaris Imaging, Inc., gave us the widely-publicised interpretation of the scans taken by a combination of side-scan sonar equipment and sub-bottom profilers (Paul is the president of Polaris Imaging, which received a lot of favourable publicity for its EOSCAN processing and display system, thanks to the 1996 Titanic expedition). The scans supposedly showed exactly what many scientists and engineers involved in the subject expected to see. The scans have not been made available for independent analysis, as far as I know.
I have some experience in analysing SLAR images to determine ship types, and from that I know that in radar/sonar scanning, single-source analysis carries with it a high risk of misinterpretation. I am not suggesting that Polaris's EOSCAN/EOMAP systems are faulty, just that single-source analysis should be questioned, at the very least. Ideally, the scans and initial interpretation should be sent to multiple independent sources for parallel analysis and validation.
An example of this is the EOMAP composite (again, a Polaris Imaging, Inc. product) of thousands of digital images to "reconstruct" the wreck. That is available (RMSTI sells a commercial version of it) and independent analysts have subsequently found a number of errors in the compositing.
But let's assume for sake of discussion that Matthias's interpretation of the side-scans was correct. I would still like to know how he could differentiate ice damage from that sustained when the wreck struck the ocean floor.
Back when I was researching my book, "Last Log," the Discovery Channel web site had a day-by-day accounting of the Matthias expedition. In the journal of one day, he was quoted as saying that they found not only the same kind of damage on the PORT bow, but even more of this damage than was found on the starboard bow.
This bit of information, that damage was found to both bows and not just the starboard was carefully not presented by the Discovery Channel on air. And, subsequently these comments by Paul Matthias have been removed from the Discovery Channel web site.
More recently, James Cameron visited and documented the wreck of the German battleship Bismark. His expedition discovered long horizontal "cuts" where portions of the hull were excised near the turn of the bilge. Later, they found bits of wreckage that indicated the almost surgical cuts were actually welds ripped apart by the force of impact when the hull hit the bottom of the Atlantic.
I could not help but be struck by the similarity of the damage done to the two ships--seams apparently "blown" apart by impact with the bottom. The two ships differed markedly in construction (welds vs rivets) as well as physical mass, etc. To my eye, the nature of the observed bottom impact damage was remarkably similar when these differences are taken into account.
Finally, we have an existing 1911-era rivet construction ship that received damage pushing its way through ice. This is the S.S. Willis B. Boyer in Toledo, OH. During the 1970s it pushed through unusually heavy harbor ice in Duluth, Minnesota. A few hours later the crew discovered water in the forepeak. Here's the interesting part. The water was not coming in through displaced seams. Rather, it entered through rivet holes opened when their fasteners were pushed out by contact with the ice. Damage was controlled by driving wooden pegs into the holes until the missing rivets could be replaced.
My point is that the experiences of a real ship built of virtually the same quality steel and rivets have never been consulted by the experts who postulate about how Titanic's side opened up on contact with the ice. Perhaps a little time spent studying a real ship that experienced similar trauma might change some opinions. And, maybe we might get a re-consideration of some very valuable data that has apparently been misinterpreted.
i dont think anyone will really know the total damage done to titanic on account of the fact that a good portion of the hull is stuck in the sea bottom unable to be reached for further study either now or in the future.however,in can be agreed upon that the collision was more than suffecient to sink her no matter the efforts given to save her.any arguements concerning the "hole","gash" or "busted seams and rivets" can be placed aside as it is an waste of time and energy.
>>any arguements concerning the "hole","gash" or "busted seams and rivets" can be placed aside as it is an waste of time and energy.<<
Notice the title of the folder this thread is in: Collision/Sinking Theories. Far from being a waste of time, discussing such questions as to the nature and extent of the damage goes right to the very heart of what this section is all about.
It helps to know that there are some details that are entirely knowable. There were sidescan sonar images taken of the hull below the waterline which...if nothing else...eliminated the perported gash as a possibilty. Just as well since the Inquires never concluded that there was a gash. At best, they spoke of damage extending over three hundred feet of the ship's length.
Having eliminted that once and for all, we can now move onto other possibilities, and doing so helps us to better understand what actually happened.