Suction Cause the Stern to Rise


Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaron C.

Guest
I'm not quite sure of how the stern could have gotten into nearly a vertical position after the break-up of the ship. What I think that more likely happened is that the stern somehow dislodged from the rest of the ship, but was still attached to it. Kinda like when you break your arm. Your arm is still there as a whole, but it is severely fractured.

Could it have been the suction from the water trying to replace itself between the bow and stern at the point of breakup that could have caused the stern to get such a high angle in the air, or did she get there at all?

Responds to this post would be appreciated.

Thanks.
happy.gif
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
6
183
I seriously doubt it was suction that contributed to it (interesting idea, by the way.) I tend to agree, however, with the idea that it was attached at the double bottom/keel to the bow, which pulled it to a nearly perpendicular position before it sank. Whether the stern was still attached when it submerged is still in debate, IIRC.


Adam
 
A

Aaron C.

Guest
Well, it still seems like a possibility....at first glance it doesnt seem possible, but I'll break it down for you.

At first glance it seems rather impossible, I mean, how does suction actually raise a ship up? It just doesnt make a lot of sense......further thought, though, makes it kind of interesting.

If the stern was still attached to the rest of the ship as some of us believe, then the suction from the sinking bow could have just as well pulled the stern to a nearly vertical position. Think about it for a moment. The weight of the Titanic was very vast. Extra cargo, boilers, people(no not the dead ones since dead people in water have no weight), and the weight of the ship itself could create a huge force of suction.

I mean, a huge wave washed over the ship during the sinking...this was definitely a result of the suction, since the rest of the water around them was calm. Unless the water flowed over the ship slowly from the ship calmly sinking into the sea, then the wave may have been moving very fast. Again, suction would have been the culprit.

At the point of breakup, where water is trying to replace itself, the suction was even stronger. Since this happened, it acted as a magnet into which it pulled the stern right into. Since the stern was bottom heavy, it did not slip into the sea nearly horizontal, rather, this caused the stern to tip on end, and reach its possible perpendicular status.

Does it seem to make more sense now?

I just figured it out myself, and I think it seems fairly credible.

Responses are appreciated.

Thanks!
happy.gif
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
This all assumes that the ship indeed went to the vertical when she plunged. The evidence of the boilers and the engines still being in place say otherwise. It's conceivable that the mass of the bow section would have had an effect, but only if still attatched. In any event, it's the weight here that's the factor, not suction. With water rushing in, there would have been a lot more weight in the forward part of the stern section, the sheer mass of which would have caused it to rear up.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
May 5, 2001
406
6
183
> Posted by Aaron C. on Saturday, 4 May, 2002 - 6:34 pm: > > I'm not quite sure of how the stern could have gotten into nearly a > vertical position after the break-up of the ship. What I think that > more likely happened is that the stern somehow dislodged from the rest > of the ship, but was still attached to it. Kinda like when you break > your arm. Your arm is still there as a whole, but it is severely > fractured. > > Could it have been the suction from the water trying to replace itself > between the bow and stern at the point of breakup that could have > caused the stern to get such a high angle in the air, or did she get > there at all? > > Responds to this post would be appreciated. > > Thanks.
happy.gif
>

Hi Aaron, I can give you the layman's explanation....there was roughly 125 feet of stern that was left after the break up, now I doubt seriously if 125 feet of the stern could have stayed vertical like it was supposed to have by itself so I believe it was still attached to the bow section until the bow section started it's descent to the bottom, then the stern just filled with enough water and sank also but since the stern was not water pressure compensated like the bow was, it imploded about 1000 feet down. There are others here who could give you the technical jargon for this but thats how I see this happened.

Regards, Bill
 
May 5, 2001
406
6
183
Posted by Aaron C. on Saturday, 4 May, 2002 - 11:53 pm:

> If the stern was still attached to the rest of the ship as some of us > believe, then the suction from the sinking bow could have just as well > pulled the stern to a nearly vertical position. Think about it for a > moment. The weight of the Titanic was very vast. Extra cargo, boilers, > people(no not the dead ones since dead people in water have no > weight), and the weight of the ship itself could create a huge force > of suction.

> I mean, a huge wave washed over the ship during the sinking...this was > definitely a result of the suction, since the rest of the water around > them was calm. Unless the water flowed over the ship slowly from the > ship calmly sinking into the sea, then the wave may have been moving > very fast. Again, suction would have been the culprit. > > At the point of breakup, where water is trying to replace itself, the > suction was even stronger. Since this happened, it acted as a magnet > into which it pulled the stern right into. Since the stern was bottom > heavy, it did not slip into the sea nearly horizontal, rather, this > caused the stern to tip on end, and reach its possible perpendicular > status. > > Does it seem to make more sense now? > > I just figured it out myself, and I think it seems fairly credible. > > Responses are appreciated. >

Well the actual weight of the ship was vast enough at sinking but we must remember that water played a key weight factor here seeing as how at least half the bow was completely filled with it. There were some who say the suction was not all the tremendous after the stern left the surface, it was more like a GULP then actual suction per sa.

I don't think Magnet is a good anology, I think the stern was still attached to the bow when it was thrown perpendicular, then when it (the bow) disconnected from the stern, the stern somewhat righted itself before it went down.

Regards, Bill
 
A

Aaron C.

Guest
Remember, though, I'm not talking about the suction AFTER the stern left the surface, I'm referring to when the ship split, but was still attached to the bow.

Yes, I understand your viewpoint, and it actually sounds more credible than mine. I mean, the only true possible way the stern could have went perpendicular like that in the first place was if there was some other weight forcing it to rise. I was trying to figure out exactly what that weight might be; a combination of the suction and weight of the bow, or the suction of where the bow broke, where there was a clear open space between the ship at the point of breakup.

I still think it could be two possibilities. Either the bow was still attached, and it caused the stern to rise in the sea; OR the ship completely split, and the weight of the forward stern + the suction of the rest of the ship heading towards the bottom of the sea pulled it down, and then back. I thought it created sort of a whirlpool effect, and anything succumbing to a whirlpool will stand on end.
happy.gif


Not pretty whichever way it happened.
 
M

martin randalu

Guest
The bow dragged stern vertically and then broke up. Stern floated like cork on water and then sank with the air inside ship. Thats why stern is more crashed than bow. (cause of the implosion)
 
Jun 9, 2006
10
0
71
The stern of the ship was considerably heavier than that of the bow section, having both reciprocating engines, the turbine engine and the whole of boiler room 1 in it. As the ship sank, it is is now thought that the bow section did indeed remain attached for a short while at the keel.

The engines and boilers accounted for a large percentage of the overall weight of the ship. As the bow sank it pulled down on the stern, before breaking off, and beginning its decent to the ocean floor. The bulkheads inside the stern located around and aft of the engines, were the last bulkheads to remain intact. This would have created a lot of trapped air. (okay this is where it gets a little confusing). This kept the aft part of the stern section afloat, while the huge weight of the engines and boiler pulled down the forward part of the stern section. This caused the stern to rotate, about 90 degrees, about a point of rotation situated directly underneath the aft grand staircase. the first class smoking room and the third and fourth funnels.

It does indeed seem unlikely that the stern could do this, but the immense weight of the engines had to find a middle point ie: pointing directly down. The reason her stern lifted out of the water is simple. Her last remaining bulkheads held out trapping air. As part of the stern sank, the other half floated, lifting it out of the water. This is why she stayed in a such verticle position. The engines had found their middle point, but the bulkheads held tight, leaving her floating in the air. Eventually her bulkheads gave way (which explains the enormous rumbling sound heard by witnesses) and the stern sank.
The air being forced out as the stern sank ripped away most of the decks, peeling back the poop deck like a can lid. (it has recently been calculated that the force of the air escaping from the stern could have levelled 1 square mile of housing in an instant!)

The stern sank straight down like a lead weight, the heavy engines leading the way to the bottom.
It may have overtaken the bow section on the way down, but no-one knows for sure. It slammed into the mud burying itself 50-60 feet deep. The force of the impact caused the decks to impl,ode on one another, causing the hull plating to explode and splay outwards, leaving the stern in the destroyed state that it is in today.

The bow either planed down at an angle of around 12 degrees or waffled down like a leaf. It must have hit the bottom at around 12 degrees, burying itself deep into the mud, and buckling in two places.
 

Will C. White

Member
Apr 18, 2007
267
2
123
I'm with you, Sam. He's talking about loads that would make our best modern welds and bolts fail prior to the stern even foundering, and how about that keel! If the 'Napolli' had one that good, they wouldn't be hauling her away in pieces, and I think 'Pasha Bulker' is going to the wreckers as well with a "broken back". Could be right about an explosion at some point after foundering from trapped air-how many atmospheres is 2 1/2 miles?
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>and I think 'Pasha Bulker' is going to the wreckers as well with a "broken back". <<

Last I heard, the Pasha Bulker was to be repaired. At least that was the claim in one of the last stories I posted before the Blame Game investigation got going. Maybe somebody got a good look at what the grounding did and realized it was more trouble then it was worth.

>>Could be right about an explosion at some point after foundering from trapped air-how many atmospheres is 2 1/2 miles?<<

As I understand it...no. The compartments with trapped air would have imploded but compressed as air would be at those depths, you wouldn't have an explosive effect.

Since this understanding could be mistaken, if somebody has a link to a site which has solid scientific data on how compressed air behaves at those depths, by all means, put it up.
 
Jun 9, 2006
10
0
71
May I just say that the account I have given, is the account given by Dr. Ballard himself, through his many books and television programmes. I do not think that you would assume that Dr.Ballard would not do his research before publishing this theory himself.

Notice that I also said "it is now thought that the bow hung on at the keel for a short while", not "the bow without doubt hung on at the keel". A little proof reading can go a long way.

If Samuel, you would care to read "The Discovery of the Titanic" you would perhaps see that I have indeed researched my facts, and that I will not tolerate someone accusing me of lax research. One just hopes that next time, you will bother to your research!
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Calm down, Ben! We're all friends here.

For your information, Sam Halpern is a widely respected researcher, whose credibility is at least as great as Ballard's. Ballard is neither engineer, physicist, nor navigator. He has some notable clangers to his credit.

I'm inclined to agree with some of your post. I think the weight of the engines did play a part in tipping the stern up and the bottom of the hull did probably help drag the stern under.

Where you go astray is "The stern sank straight down like a lead weight, the heavy engines leading the way to the bottom." It's obvious from the wreck that as the stern sank, hydrodynamics took over from weight in influencing the fall. The rounded stern, which was more or less intact, led the way to the bottom and struck it, rudder first, very hard.
 
Jun 9, 2006
10
0
71
Oh sorry, Dave I didnt explain what I meant well enough!

When I said "the heavy engines leading the way to the bottom" I didnt mean that the stern sank vertically. I meant that it fell level, striking the bottom square. I just used the engine term for emphasis.

Sorry about any misunderstandings,
 
Jun 11, 2000
2,524
26
313
Benjamin,
You're fairly new to this site. It doesn't matter very much, now, whether you are proved right or wrong ultimately. But it does matter to research the other people's posts, and if you do so, I think you will find that Sam does not rely upon TV documentaries, but is the most assiduous researcher ... even if you disagree with his conclusions. So before you blast him, and incur a great deal of collateral damage, I think you should explore further on the many threads here.
 
Jun 9, 2006
10
0
71
Yes I am quite new to the site but I do feel that I should be able to express my views freely rather than be supressed by a group of people, who have nothing better to do than sit around all day on a computer, trying to decide how 1500 human lives were lost.

In my opinion the whole Titanic issue has been blown way out of proportion, and I think that it is truly disgusting, that an event which claimed so many people, has been given such celebrity image. As far as I am concerned no-one I have met here has any real respect for the disaster, and I can honestly say that I will not be using this site again, and that I am utterly appalled at the general lack of empathy displayed by so many here!

Yours angrily,
 
Apr 30, 2007
64
0
96
Lessons to be learnt.

Novices: - feel free to express opinions but include plenty of caveats so as to make it clear they are only opinions & not facts.

Expert researchers: - show a little more tolerance and be a bit more constructive to those who have taken the time & trouble to make a contribution.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>May I just say that the account I have given, is the account given by Dr. Ballard himself, through his many books and television programmes. I do not think that you would assume that Dr.Ballard would not do his research before publishing this theory himself. <<

That may be so, but that doesn't mean he's right. (Doesn't mean that a lot of us are right either.) The one thing I've learned over the years if I've learned nothing else, is that the forensics research is an evolutionary process. An effort in a constant state of further research and revision. All it takes to send all of us right back to Square One is a new piece of evidence which casts doubt on or even thoroughly discredits a premise we may once have thought was golden. I've seen this happen quite a few times over the past seven years, and not just on this website.

Nobody's word is the last one on this subject, not even Dr. Ballard's, because something new always comes up to throw a monkey wrench into the works.

>>One just hopes that next time, you will bother to your research!<<

Sam has done just that, and more. He's also taken part in some important research efforts which have helped further our understanding of the technical issues surrounding this event.

>>Yes I am quite new to the site but I do feel that I should be able to express my views freely rather than be supressed by a group of people,<<

You have not been suppressed. You've been on the recieving end of some well informed counterpoints and that's a chance we all take. You have the same freedom as anyone to speak your piece, but others have the same right of response, and the freedom to agree and to disagree.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
quote:

who have nothing better to do than sit around all day on a computer, trying to decide how 1500 human lives were lost.

Errr...not quite. Some of us actually have jobs, so that we can put a roof over our heads, pay the bills and afford to feed ourselves and our families.

quote:

One just hopes that next time, you will bother to your research!

Sam already has and much more. Plus, he is one of the many terrific researchers on this board.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads