Stress Fracture Possibility Or Not


Jan 5, 2001
2,299
99
178
Almost forgot. Well, did forget.
smile.gif

Old age... or tiredness in my case.

Erik,

Could you check the thread in the other shipwrecks folder that deals with report of formal investigation...Britannic? There's a theory of yours that sounds interesting.

Best regards,

mark.
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
I know that it has been quite some time since I have last posted on this thread. In fact it has been so long that I have forgotten what I have wrote previous. The following is a theory that I am looking into.

As most of us know the decks that night stayed pretty even. With the acception of the big tilt forward. This leads me to believe that somebody somewhere was doing something to keep things straight on so that those on deck had the chance to get as many passengers as they could off. Having used ballast for just about every possible reason it occurred to me that perhaps after the ship stopped for the final time. Smith may have told Bell that he wanted him to keep the decks as level as he could. That was all…. Oh and keep power on too.

To stop the lean to starboard Bell added ballast to the forward port tanks. Which to a non mariner seems to make little sense and would actually speed up the sinking. To a point this is correct. You are adding weight to a section already weakened by the stress of Dave Browns grounding theory and the racking of the turn against the iceberg. But the water was pretty much entering from the starboard side. So Bell attempted to level it off. Then later on Bell added ballast to the aft tanks to help keep the stern down for awhile. He (Bell) knew full well that none of this would actually save the ship. He only knew that it would help the officers on deck get passengers off.

Little did they know that by adding ballast forward and aft of the effected areas they where helping the already broken back of the ship break even further not to mention quicker. The loss of the expansion joint behind the bridge was the precursor to the ship actually splitting in two. Most of the racking was done forward and including the bridge then all was hunky dory until you got in between funnel 3 and 4. I think I have discussed the actual series of events that caused this earlier. If needs be I will go through them again.

Before you all crucify me understand that this is just a theory and only that. But it makes some sense. Not a lot of sense but some. The break up itself was actually caused by a chain reaction of events.

Ship at 22 knots + quick turn + grounding forces = Stress Fractures (plural way more then one)

Grounding forces + inpact at well deck + 22 knots of momentum = Uncontrolled flooding and very inconsistent flooding forward of Boiler Room 6.

Stress Fracture + Uncontrolled flooding forward of Boiler Room 6 + twisting of frames in between funnels 3 and 4 = “Bent bow syndrome”￾.

“Bent Bow Syndrome + Stress Fracture = Break up at in between funnels 3 and 4 the loss of a expansion joint and funnel 1.

That is just a little something I came up with. But is simplifies what I am thinking as to the break up. The ballasting comes in after Titanic stops.

Erik
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
One question; Did the Titanic have the pumping capacity available to do any actual ballesting and/or shifting of ballast, or was it tied up somewhere else? (Hope this doesn't make me the wet blanket on this one.)

That the ship retained a more or less even keel has been bugging me for quite awhile. It occurred to me that with the bottom damage we're considering that they may not have even needed to do a thing. If enough otherwise dry sections were open to the sea, they would have flooded rapidly enough without anybody's help. Also, if there were any splits in the inner hull, say on the port side, the water would have come in from the bottom up. The end result would be nearly the same.

Hope this makes some sense. I may be in for some homework here.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
99
178
Hi Erik, Hi Mike!

I haven't my sources at present to comment on Titanic's equipment for ballast pumping, but have some small thoughts about the possibility of ballasting being used to help keep the decks level in order to assist in the lowering of the lifeboats. (Perhaps Cal Haines can help on that score -- he's brilliantly technical!
smile.gif
)

It sounds logical as a theory, but one thing that did 'bug' me was the experience of Engineers in 1912 as to ballasting. I hope someone can help me out here, for I've never really considered that topic, but it is my impression at the moment that it was not so commonly used. I know that in 1956 Andrea Doria's Engineers tried to lessen her dramatic list:

quote:

The (Stockholm) had hit her in the starboard fuel tanks, which were nearly empty, so the water rushed into the starboard tanks. The port tanks were completely empty and filled only with air. This combination produced a great heeling moment (sic: movement) and the Doria started at once to list to starboard...
(In trying to lessen the list, the Engineers) made one important mistake. When it was found impossible to flood the port tanks, it was decided to empty the starboard water ballast tanks, under the impression that when the tanks had been emptied of water, it would increase the buoyancy of the starboard side. Unfortunately it had the effect of increasing and not reducing the list, due to the removal of much needed weight in the lower part of the ship.

-- Diaster at Sea by John Marriott, PRC, page 118.
Now, one theory -- feel free to laugh at me! -- as you know, Titanic took a port list towards the end. She gradually shifted from starboard to port and took a heavier port list, which started increasing. Would it be possible that, partly based on my knowledge of Doria:

  • Engineers realised Titanic was taking a port list as Scotland Road acted as an 'aquaduct' (spelt wrong!).
  • And, in an effort to lessen the list, they emptied or reduced the port tanks' water to lighten the port side.
  • Which increased the list as the water higher up, e.g. E-deck, had more effect in pulling the ship to port. People had no experience of attempting such ballasting on such a massive ship, in 1912.
  • Once this occured, towards the end the higher port list continued as further flooding occured.

That's off my head -- is it plausible?

Best regards,

Mark.​
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
One other thing is that adding ballast (at least today) was routine when you add cargo. Now, that may not have been the case. There may not have been a need to ballast things out. Also because of fuel consumption (again at least today) engineers add ballast to even out the list. Tanks are usually on the sides of the engine room.

What Marks says does sound plausible to me.

Erik
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
489
213
The almost upright foundering of Titanic is unusual enough that it should have attracted considerable attention of marine architects and engineers over the years. There does not seem to be another example of a ship that stayed on its feet so well despite a fatal wound (or wounds).

The upright stance implies (but does not prove) that the engineers had a hand in things by managing the ship's ballast. Credit Captain Erik with realizing this possibility. Not only does intervention by the engineers explain the upright stance of Titanic, but also why every one of the engineers were lost that night.

Nothing replaces dumb luck when it comes to success. Perhaps Titanic's engineers never emptied a tank on the low side to correct a list without adding water on the high side. This may account for their success. Also, it is possible that damage to some or all of the tanks on the starboard side extended as far aft as boiler room #4. If so, then it would have been impossible to remove ballast from the damaged tanks. The only option would have been to pump water into any dry port side tanks opposite to the damaged tanks on the starboard side. There is more than a touch of irony to the thought that lives might have been saved (by making it possible to launch all the boats) by pumping water into the sinking Titanic.

-- David G. Brown
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
Giving Erik due credit for thinking of this is no problem IMO. The wonder of it was that nobody even thought to ask the question over 90 years and they should have.

What would be interesting would be figuring out how this was done. Flooding a ballast tank wouldn't be much of a problem, but what about shifting anything around as needed? It's moot if all they had to do was fill the empty tanks and forget about it afterwards, but if they had to do any shifting, would it have been possible to line anything up to get this done?

Cordially,
Mike
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
The more and more that I have been looking into the possibilities the more I think that there was some kind of assistance in keeping the keel even that night. Other then the fact that I can’t find a ship of any size with roughly the same kind of damage go down by the head the way Titanic did, I have nothing to prove my point except insight.

This tells me that something had to have been going on. I no longer think that ballast was moved. I just think that it was added or taken away. For the most part I think that ballast was added to the port side mainly forward at first. As the ship took an angle the added ballast aft. These where all attempts to keep the keel even.

One of the interesting things I find is that Andrews gave such an accurate time. For some time (and by the name of the thread you should get) that I don’t think that water sank Titanic. The stress caused by Dave Brown and Parks Stephenson’s grounding theory did. More to the point the stress of the entire event from pivoting to grounding caused an extreme amount of racking which caused some internal damage. Which in some cases explains the large time difference, plus the amount of time it took to sink the ship, it also explains the water rates.

In order for this to be understood people like Andrews and Bell would need to have understood what was going on in order to prevent the ship from falling apart. Granted I have no testimony based facts to prove or disprove the forthcoming theory but I think they (Andrews and Bell) had a very basic understanding of what happened. After all, Wilding described what happened very well. But he did it in what Dave Brown called code. He explained what happened without explaining what happened. I think had Andrews survived the sinking he would have said the same thing.

Part of the basics of my (and Dave Brown’s) theory, involve the internal damage that without, Titanic may have survived. Many historians and researchers have used the phrase extra ordinary when describing the circumstances involved that night. Most think it is how the ice was perceived while I would agree with that partially I don’t think that it is understood that the ship took a lot more structural damage then it did water damage. The stress caused by the grounding and pivoting made it possible for water to move through the ship unchecked. Maybe slowed, but for the most part unchecked. There are several basic naval architecture equations that have gotten me to this point.

In order to have a break up you have to have stress fractures. In order to have stress fractures you have to have a large amount of stress. In order to have a large amount of stress you have to have a maneuver that would cause a twist at two ends of the ship at one time. Which luckily for me we have. The math problem or for my purposes the problem is like this:

Right turn against solid object + 22knots of momentum = A large amount of stress.

Large amount of stress + uncontrolled flooding in key places = Multiple stress fractures.

Multiple stress fractures + a ship sinking = The ship breaking apart.

I have described this several times in other threads but for the sake of uniformity I will do it again. What we have is the ship grounding meaning buoyancy is both pushing the ship down while keeping it afloat. The ship is running aground forcing the ship up while nature is forcing it down. Then we have the right turn into the berg normally referred to in Titanic lore as the “Port Round”. The bow by the nature of the turn is being forced down and to the right while the grounding is forcing it up and berg is forcing it to the left. The 22 knots of momentum and the rudder hard over is doing the work here. So the bending is occurring at the forward end of Boiler Room 6 and is extending to the forward end of the well deck. Now by the nature of the turn the stern is being forced to the left, but the berg is forcing the stern to the right. Not by contact but by stopping the bow. So it is almost like taking to hands one at each end and twisting the ship in opposite directions.

I think that it is reasonable to say that the ship didn’t slam into the berg via the well deck but a better description would be the Titanic rubbed the surface portion of the berg. Much like a tugboat pushing on a ship. I owe Nate Robinson some credit for pointing that out to me.

In my review of this thread I put somewhere that the ship should have rolled over to the right if we use the traditional BOT explanation. Notice that they fail to call to the stand the one person who had potentially damaging testimony. In the American hearings Oliver testified that the only command that he heard was hard to port. Or right rudder in 1912. As mentioned earlier it is funny that Wilding still came to the same conclusion that I have come to but he just didn’t say it.

Sometimes I wish I had a few billion dollars so that I could go and explore the wreck for myself. Don’t we all.

Some of the problems that could have been caused by this stress (but things I have no proof actually happened) are:

1.Watertight doors not closing (if this occurred it would have been in Boiler Rooms 5 or 6 and Boiler Room 1.

2.The early loss of funnel one and the expansion joint going.

3.The eventual break up (well I have proof of that one).

If I am right and the watertight doors in one or two or both of the places didn’t close then my racking theory is proved. But again no proof. I have yet to come up with a good theory that I like all the way around.

The basis of this post centers on the fact that Andrews gave an extremely accurate time frame for the ships life. Which leads me assume (which usually makes an a#$ out of me) that he had come to the same conclusion that Wilding did. But that Andrews understood that the ship needed to be kept level if the officers where going to have half a chance of saving half of those onboard means to me that he took into account adding ballast to keep the ship as level as he could. Dave Brown pointed out to me that the ship had several lists that night. None of which where permanent.

So before you hang me remember what Benjamin Franklin once said:

“Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately”.

Far Winds and Following Seas,

Erik
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
I am re energizing this thread because parts of it are arriving in public and I have information or theories I would like to share but not in a completely public forum. I have seen Cal and Parks snooping and around and posting here and there, so I am hoping that this will encourage some conversation, debate and learning.
-----------------------------
For the past three years I have been arguing that Murdoch wasn't a complete fool and that what is said to have happened couldn't have happened, I think that I can safely assure myself that most understand this.

The talk in the Collision thread about Murdoch is confusing. Confusing because what the traditional story tells us goes against logic. I know that this has been rehashed several times over, but I am in agreeance with Parks when he said the he didn't believe Boxhall's version of the conversation between Smith and Murdoch was reliable, but I believe it for different reasons.

One is that the timing of this conversation seems odd compared to Boxhall's arrival from the place he is said to have been. Another is that if Murdoch intended fully to round the object but didn't you are left with the side swipe theory (or some deformed sister theory using the side swipe) that is physically impossible.

But at the same time if he didn't intend to port round it but made the decision during the set of events, that would lead us to believe that he exposed his beam to an object he didn't know the size of, or his distance away from. This isn't only a bone headed mistake, but it borders on negligent, actions which don't describe the Murdoch that I know (or read about that is).

There are various other things that I would again like to bring up. To include the bunker door in Boiler Room 5. While I am in agreeance with Cal on it, what I am looking for is a really good explanation of how the bunker door giving way didn't make any noise when it gave way. A noise that I would think would be loud enough for Barrett to hear and something I would remeber if it was followed by a sudden in rush of water.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
Perhaps in the confusion, they utterly failed to notice the noise...or simply forgot about it. I know if I saw a wall of water heading for me, then I certainly wouldn't hang around long enough to take notes, I'd be profoundly interested in getting the hell out of there.

Likewise, it may not have occured to anybody to mention it at the official inquiries or the noise was mixed in with a cecophony of God knows what.

With the hull edging progressively towards break up, it may well have been that the noise of the door giving up the ghost may have been mixed in with everything else and been rendered indestinguishable.

Oh, and here's a thought for you...what if on some level the bulkhead itself was undermined somehow? I know...I know...Cal will point out how ruggedly they were built, and I don't disagree with that, but how rugged was everything else around it and were they up to the stresses being imposed??? The weak link in the chain here could have been everything it was built on. A few popped rivets and a seam giving way which allows water from a flooded solid compartment forward in, along with the door on the bunker giving way could have pretty dramatic results.

I'll have to re-read what I have on Murdoch, but I agree that boneheaded mistakes weren't his style. This was a man with a demonstratable ability to make some very fast decisions in a crisis.
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
I tend to agree with your assesment of Murdoch, but I think some further explanation will be in order at some point. I know that Dave is working on some stuff related to Murdoch but I feel a general need to stop all this BS about him being a yutz.

As to the noise....I am interested in what Cal has to say on the subject. Mike makes a good point about the noise. Anybody else have any ideas???
 

Cal Haines

Member
Dec 2, 2000
308
0
146
Tucson, AZ USA
I would suspect that whatever released the water had to make some noise. It's just that Barrett didn't mention the noise. He says several places that he had the impression that something had given way.

Of the three candidates (bunker door, watertight door and structural failure of the bulkhead or whatever) I would think that the bunker door would make the least noise. It's really just a steel plate that runs in vertical tracks formed by angle irons. All that it has to do to fail is to bend about a vertical axis. Now they may well have taken steps to shore the bunker doors up and nobody happened to mention it.

Beauchamp's statement about water coming in around the bunker door is intriguing. I know that he says he was in BR#6 at the time, but it would dovetail with Barrett and Hendrickson if he actually helped draw the fires in #5, not #6 and somehow "got confused". As I have stated previously, motive existed for him to be confused on this point as it helps mitigate the fact that Barrett and Hesketh abandoned the compartment after the collision.

Cal
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
99
178
Hi!

For what it's worth I tend to agree with Cal's thoughtful analysis. If you're saying that you believe a bunker door is the most likely candidate, then I agree.

Best regards,

Mark.
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
Cal convinced me a long time ago. But there has been some recent debate here and elsewhere regarding the bunker door.

Another question I have (I am not sure we can answer this with any amount of certainty) is who much water could the bunker hold. If I am not mistaken the bunker is attached the water tight bulkhead. In order to know this we have to know how much coal was in the different bunkers. So if the door did give in some how, how much water could have entered that space based soley on the water that was in the bunker, and if we are talking about the port bunker how did water get there, and if we are talking about the starboard bunker, how big was the hole that was allowing water into that bunker???

Some other questions I have center around the weight that the bunker bulkhead could hold when it comes to water, and especially considering that water would continue to put pressure against the unwatertight bulkhead and that would cause some problems no???
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Some other questions I have center around the weight that the bunker bulkhead could hold when it comes to water, and especially considering that water would continue to put pressure against the unwatertight bulkhead and that would cause some problems no???<<

Uh...maybe not in isolation. If memory serves, the coal bunkers became the oil bunkers when the Olympic was converted to oil. Granted, water is somewhat heavier then oil, but the point is that holding a liquid load wouldn't have been a problem in and of itself. They had the strength to do that in an undamaged condition.

Damaged may be another story...
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
99
178
Hi!

Olympic's bunkers did hold oil post-1920, although naturally modifications were needed. Rivets needed to be made oil-tight, etc...

Best,

Mark.
 

Cal Haines

Member
Dec 2, 2000
308
0
146
Tucson, AZ USA
OK Cap'n Erik. I though I was going to sit down with my morning coffee and dash off a quick reply, but this has turned into an all day project. The wife's pissed and it's far from perfect, but here it is:

1. How much water could the bunker hold?

Think of it this way: The longitudinal depth of the bunker "W" is about the same as the stokehold firing area between the bunker front and the boiler end. The rest of the boiler room is full of boilers (imagine that). Let's forget about the water that winds up between the boilers and in the furnaces for the moment. There are two stokeholds, so each stokehold and the bunker all have about the same volume. If we filled the bunker up to some level, say 30 feet, then release it into the two stokeholds, the water fill fan out to fill a volume about three times the original, so the depth of water would drop to one third, or 10 feet. (Neglecting the water between the boilers, in the furnaces, in the aft fireman's passage, in the pump room, any that enters the aft bunker, etc..) Now, that distance is above the tank top; the stokehold plates were 2 feet above the tank top, so we have a depth of water at 8 feet.

A boiler is essentially a cylinder and a cylinder fills 78% (pi divided by 4 to be exact) of the rectangular space that encloses it . This is also true if the boiler is half submerged; it's a bit more complicated if the boiler is partially submerged, but the ratio does not change dramatically. As it turns out, the volume between the boilers is about half of that of a stokehold. So when we take the area between the boilers into account, the water will fan out to fill a volume roughly 3½ times the original; 30 feet of water translates to about 8½ feet of water above the tank top or 6½ above the floor plates.

Another thing to point out is that the water can't get under the floor plates immediately. The water will flow out on top of the plates and must then find it's way under the plates via the joints, drain holes and missing plates such as the one that Shepherd fell through. So the water would rush out, quickly reach a depth of 8 feet or so, then settle down to about 6 feet.

The above fails to account for lots of little details, as mentioned before. Two things to consider are that the port part of the bunker was probably full of coal, so it could not hold as much water, but it could definitely hold some water in the spaces between the chunks of coal. Going strictly from memory, I want to say that the coal will only occupy about 50% of the volume. Also, the bunker is divided in two by the fireman's tunnel which is 11½ feet tall (measuring up from the tank top). This means that about 20% of the bunker volume is out of play if the final depth is less than 11½ feet. In addition, the fireman's tunnel is offset to starboard 9 feet, so the port portion of the bunker is larger than the starboard.

Morgan Ford went through a analysis where he considered most of the things mentioned above and concluded that if the bunker were full of water, the final depth would be about 7 feet. If the bunker were 50% full, the final depth would be about 3 feet. Morgan's analysis did not (as far as I know) consider the contribution of water from the lateral bunkers, which would add more water to the mix.

Here is how I imagine the failure of the bunker door (forgive me for taking some literary license):
With 30 feet of water standing in the bunker, the bunker doors are holding against a force of 13 tons exerted by the water, they slowly bow outward under the crushing force. The vertical tracks at the sides of the door slowly deform. Finally, the bunker door to starboard of the watertight door has flexed enough to slip past the edge of the track. The door springs away and water rushes out at almost 30 miles an hour. In the first second alone, almost 5000 gallons of water are discharged, enough to fill a box 9 feet on a side. The space between the front of the boiler and the bunker fill almost instantly. The angry water mounts up behind the dam formed by the front of the boiler, it turns, sluggishly at first, then with increasing speed towards the sides of the ship. The inky water quickly finds the gaps on either side of the boiler and some of it turns to charge aft, roaring in fury at the works of man that have dared to hold it back.

Mr. Harvey is abaft the center boiler when he hears the roar. Before he can comprehend what is happening, there is a river of water, waist deep and rising, rushing past in front of him and charging aft down the fireman's tunnel. Behind him, a second river crashes against the bunker bulkhead. He realizes he cannot cross the torrent to the safety of the ladder, but Barrett is closer. "Go!" he yells as the icy water swirls around his knees.

Barrett lunges for the ladder and climbs as if the very hounds of hell are on his heels. He never looks back, afraid the churning water will overtake him if he does...​
2. How could water get into the port bunker?

Bunker "W" was essentially a big box, running the width of the ship, with the fireman's tunnel passing though it. Once the depth of water in the starboard part of the bunker reached the top of the tunnel (11½ feet) it would flow over the top of the tunnel into the port portion of the bunker, filling up the voids between the chunks of coal. Once the water level in the port portion of the bunker reached the top of the tunnel, the level would continue to rise across the width of the ship.

3. How strong were the bunker bulkheads?

The basic specs for the bulkheads were:

Bunker bulkhead: single row 3/4" rivets on a 4¼" pitch, bottom strake of plates 0.44" thick, second strake 0.30", typical frame spacing 36"

WT bulkhead: double row 7/8" rivets on 4" pitch, bottom strake of plates 0.56", second strake 0.50", typical frames spacing 33​
My copy of Principles of Naval Architecture (SNAME, 1947), page 238, table 3, based on then current American Bureau of Shipping Rules, calls for 0.411" thick plate with stiffeners spaced at 36" for a head of 30 feet. For a head of 50 feet, the plate thickness is 0.526. The rivets seem to be appropriate for the thickness of the plate. The second strake of bunker plates, at 0.30", just meets the spec for 10 feet of head.

So it appears that one bunker bulkhead all by itself should be adequate to function as a watertight bulkhead to a depth of about 15 feet (the second strake starts about 5 feet up). I'm not sure what the margin of safety built into the US rules, but it was undoubtedly very generous. The actual watertight bulkhead far exceeds the requirements for 30 feet of head, in fact exceeds that for 50 feet of head. When you take the two bunker bulkheads and tie them to the watertight bulkhead, the resulting combination is even stronger yet.

Now, I think the weak spot of the bunker bulkheads is the bunker doors, which were never meant to be watertight. They were just steel plates, 0.32" thick with a vertical angle iron stiffener down the center and a piece of strap across the bottom. The SNAME table indicates that 0.32" plate with stiffeners at 24" would handle a 30' head. The door's vertical stiffener isn't secured at the ends, so it doesn't act to stiffen the door in the same way that the framing of a bulkhead does, nor is the door plate secured at the sides as the SNAME table assumes. The SNAME table also indicates that the 0.32 bulkhead with 24" stiffeners subjected to a 30 foot head would deflect outwards 0.46" between the stiffeners. The tracks that held the bunker door were only ½" deep, so if the door deflects enough it will pop out of the tracks and well, see my overly embellished description above.

Cal
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
Well now that I have gotten Cal in trouble (don't worry I find myself in the same boat sometimes when it comes to things Titanic), I want to thank you for your response, it is in deed informative and now is going to require me to print it off and use it for some more research.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
Erik, Phil Hind was wondering the following in case you missed it;
quote:

Mike and Erik, can you look at that defunct Technical private area and let me know a. if it is still needed and b. what to do with all the old stuff
Any ideas? I'd sure hate to see this and the other threads vanish into the eather of cyberspace as they can show the sort of discussions that have been behind our thinking over the past few years.​
 
May 9, 2001
741
2
146
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am going to copy the thread discussions and save them on my pc for reference. At least that way Phil won't have to maintain the thread online, and in the future I can access the discussion materials.

Yuri

**But as soon as the thread is deleted, probably someone will have an idea or new theory and have to start the thread again!
 

Similar threads