Superior mirage and the Californian

M

Mila

Guest
Absolutely Not!
As for the distance of 47 miles? Morengo was 47 miles on a bearing of about S18W at or near to 1 pm on the afternoon of April 15.
Jim, could you please tell me how many miles from the wreck site Marengo was at 8 am and 4 pm on 15 April?
Thank you.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
And who told you that the refraction is seen better from the height, Aaron? It is absolutely not the case. Sometimes (most of times?) it is seen better from the sea level. There are free books on the NET in which researchers describe situations in which they saw a mirage from the deck, and it was completely gone, when they were climbing masts. I also noticed the same occurrences.
I see the refraction on the Irish sea when I'm first on the beach, and I see it much better when I am on the top floor of my house which is 30+ feet above sea level. All of the examples I showed are from that height (maybe higher) as I watch ships that are 20+ miles away which normally should never be visible, but are affected by the refraction which makes them very visible and the illusion makes them appear very close. I believe if the Californian was 10 miles or less then she would not be affected by refraction because she was too close for it to affect both ships observations, and therefore the Californian likely was 18 - 30 miles away when the Titanic went down.



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Mila

Guest
From 1922 IIP report:
The last berg sighted this day was picked up from the forecastle deck at a distance of 21 miles and looked like a square-rigged ship under full sail.' It could not be seen from either the bridge or the crow's nest at the time
From 1915 IIP report
Before reaching cold water we picked up a berg in a, mirage at 9" distance of 20 miles. It was first seen from the deck, and could be made out from the bridge only when the vessel settled between waves; it could not be seen at all from the crow's nest for fully 10 minutes after it was reported from deck. In about half an hour the mirage disappeared and the berg could then be seen from the bridge and crow's nest, but not from the deck. (My highlight).
Notice also the mirage was seen from warm water and the Titanic and the Californian were both in cold water, which means that even if Marengo observed refraction from the right place and at the right time (which she did not), and even if we knew for sure that refraction was a superior mirage (and we do not), even then Marengo's observation do not help to prove there was refraction between Titanic and Californian and/or Titanic and the iceberg.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with seeing a mirage on 10 miles away.
You may want to read this article
https://www.vk2krr.com/Andrew t Young Fata Morgana article 2017.pdf
It has great pictures of mirages, some taken less than 4 kilometers away.
Here's a quote from the article
Forel ascribed the Fata Morgana to the
transition from inferior to superior mirages, without a plausible
explanation. But he recorded important geometric details: the
distance to the objects seen in Fata Morganas ranged from 10
to 30 or 40 km the optimal eye height was from 2 to
4 meters above the lake, and “a shift of a foot or two above or
below the best position in any given case is sufficient to make the
phenomenon disappear
” (my bolding)
As I mentioned many times already, Aaron, your pictures are of inferior mirages and Tim alleges not only a superior mirage, bur a mirage of the sea surface. I have never seen a mirage of the sea surface from high elevation. It is always seen better from the sea level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,028
566
143
England
as I watch ships that are 20+ miles away which normally should never be visible, but are affected by the refraction which makes them very visible and the illusion makes them appear very close.
Out of pure curiosity, how do you confirm the range they are at or should be at? How do you know they are at 20 miles plus when you are looking at them?
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Imagine if there was a shipping tracker back in 1912. The Titanic and Californian's speed, course, and position would just be one click away. If only. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob Lawes

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,448
496
153
Funchal. Madeira
Has anyone ever asked the question as to why those on Morengo confidently wrote .."Much refraction"... in her log book? Or wondered how it was that they were able to make that entry?

The visible horizon is not the true horizon, To measure the True Altitude of a celestial body above the true horizon, corrections are applied to the initial sextant measurement. Two these are Refraction and Dip (of the sea horizon).
In my day, to determine refraction, we used Mean Refraction Tables. They used the same ones in 1912. These were from work done by Professor Bessel of Konigsberg and were based on a mean temperature of 50F and a barometer height of 29.6 inches.
Thus, when the air temperature is 50F and the barometer is 29.6 inches, The value of Refraction at sea level is 34.9 minutes of arc...i.e.the true horizon is just over half a degree below the visible horizon
However, if at the same place, the temperature drops to say 30F and the barometer rises to 30.8 inches, then we must add another 1.4 minutes of arc for the drop in temperature and another 1.4 minutes of arc for rise in barometric pressure. Now, the true horizon is 34.9 + 1.4 + 1.4 = 37.7 minutes of arc below the visible horizon and instead of having mean refraction, we have "much refraction".
That is what was meant by these notations in Morengo's Log Book. Alone, they do not indicate mirage conditions.
The following is taught in naval Schools:
"
Mirages at sea.jpg

The reader should compare the above with the conditions prevailing in the vicinity of the wreck site at Midnight on April 14. For mirage of any kind, there has to be warm air above a cold surface or cold air above a warm surface. An Inferior mirage and "looming" also requires a light winds.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
An Inferior mirage and "looming" also requires a light winds.

Curious to learn if Mr. Lightoller was speaking of an inferior mirage "looming" when he said the following at the British Inquiry:


Re - What happens when a lookout man see's the light of a ship.

Lightoller - "The man may, on a clear night, see the reflection of the light before it comes above the horizon. It may be the loom of the light and you see it sometimes sixty miles away. He may just make sure of it with the glasses, because there is any amount of time - hours. There is no hurry about them on a clear night at all."


.
 
M

Mila

Guest
For mirage of any kind, there has to be warm air above a cold surface or cold air above a warm surface. An Inferior mirage and "looming" also requires a light winds.
Hi Jim,
An inferior mirage is not looming. To form looming requires surface-based temperature inversion. An inferior mirage forms, when the surface is warmer that the air above it. Once I saw an inferior and superior mirage of the same land together. It was inferior mirage on the surface and superior above it.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,448
496
153
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Jim,
An inferior mirage is not looming. To form looming requires surface-based temperature inversion. An inferior mirage forms, when the surface is warmer that the air above it. Once I saw an inferior and superior mirage of the same land together. It was inferior mirage on the surface and superior above it.
I never suggested that it was, Mila. Look at the Met Book text I shared, with you. Looming is simply another form of abnormal refraction.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
761
363
73
South Wales UK
Hi Mila,

I repeat once again we are completely hampered by being unable to assess your own theories because to access them we have to pay the RMS!

Tim has done a TV programme of some 1 hour 30 minutes, and has his own website where people can contribute, and so far as 'The Californian Incident' is concerned pretty much the whole of his thesis in respect of The Californian can be easily read in considerable detail on his website (by clicking on 'older posts' the whole of this thesis/extracts from his book can be read).

Tim's thesis of 'The Californian Incident' is very readable, and accords pretty much with my own in many respects. It also accords to a great degree with David Dyer's paper 'Titanic and the Mystery Ship: Mystery solved'

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5625edc1e4b003e2b1ee669b/t/58fd9e382e69cf0c60bc143d/1493016130807/Dyer-Mystery-Ship-article.pdf

Tim's analysis probably does not require resort to a 'mirage' effect/abnormal refraction, but I can see that Tim's analysis is quite careful and considered of the evidence of 'The Californian Incident'. I can see how certain aspects of that 'deceiving night' might possibly have been the result of some abnormal refraction, though for myself I think this is unnecessary - and I assume you would agree with my conclusion also?

Tim's analysis of 'The Californian Incident' is (putting to one side the mirage/abnormal refraction debate) very close to that of David Dyer's paper linked above. For that alone he deserves some considerable credit in my opinion, as does David Dyer's paper.

I am not in any way implying plagiarism by Tim of David Dyer's paper. If I were to write a paper from my own research (and the considerable help I have received from others on this forum) it would probably be very similar in most respects to David Dyer's paper, and include the same quotes that Tim uses, and similar conclusions of both (except the abnormal refraction theories of Tim which I really know nothing about). (I would probably add also a lot more about some psychological profiling of Captain Lord, and quite a bit about his later life which I personally regard as highly relevant and important).

What I am suggesting is that Tim and David's approach to 'The Californian Incident' (omitting for the moment Tim's mirage/abnormal refraction) provides a new post Harrison/Reade concensus of 'The Californian Incident', and I am also aware that other forum members who have carried out considerable research support the David Dyer paper.

Cheers,

Julian
 
M

Mila

Guest
Julian,

I have just added a video abstract for one of my articles New Information on Titanic: What's there left to say?
It could give you a good idea what I think about Californian and I believe it could explain many things including sightings from lifeboats.

But let us get back to Tim. I believe that making such claims like he did with Marengo (and I know some others Tim’s claims) is dishonest, and I said so, and this has absolutely nothing to do with either my research or his website or whatever. If you disagree with me about this, I do not believe there is any use to continue our conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
761
363
73
South Wales UK
Hi Mila,

In my post 78 I stated

It would be fair to ask of Tim whether he had the full log that you have at the time he wrote his book.
So far, Tim has not responded.

I can see what you are getting at, but it is up to Tim to respond and defend himself in respect of the Marengo Log book entries. I am perfectly able to work out where the Titanic wreck site is and realise what you propose in respect of the Marengo Log book entries which do not place the Marengo anywhere near where the Titanic wreck site is!

On the basis of the above, is it up to Tim to provide an explanation as to why the distant Marengo's log book entries of her position should be of relevance to Titanic with the other entries in the Marengo's log book.

I hope this is helpful and should be no reason for terminating your debate with me!

(Incidentally I had watched your YouTube clip provided as above on the other thread, and although I took the point about eddies I cannot see how it adds much. I did try and follow the temperature scale, but it is not exactly easy to follow? I found it neither compelling or conclusive).

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: T Maltin
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
....the Marengo Log book entries which do not place the Marengo anywhere near where the Titanic wreck site....

I believe the Marengo was very close to the Titanic (within 30 nautical miles). e.g. The Marengo was just 30 nautical miles from the Titanic wreck on April 15th and I understand the Titanic had steamed northwards after she struck the iceberg which would mean she was further south and closer to the Marengo's position before she struck the iceberg, and I believe the Marengo's positions do not show her 'exact' position as it was impossible to get it exactly right in those days, and therefore she could have been further north and even closer to the Titanic with the aid of the Gulf stream pushing them upwards towards the Titanic's track. e.g.

30 nautical miles apart on paper, but possibly 24 nautical miles or less in real life.


distancemarengo.png



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: T Maltin
M

Mila

Guest
Once again as it clearly seen from the attached map Marengo was nowhere close to the Titanic on the time of the sinking. She has never been in the right place at the right time.



I would not nave any problems If Tim said something like that: " At the time of the sinking Marengo was nowhere close to the Titanic, but her logs have records of "much refraction" on a few occasions on April 14 and April 15, including the one when 16 hours after the collision she was passing a few dozen miles south east from the wreck site. Even more importantly, when Marengo was at her closest approach to the wreck site the temperature of the water was 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the temperature of the air. On the other hand, for the Titanic, the Californian and the iceberg the temperature of the water and the air were about the same. Marengo logs indicate that the stars were clear and bright. The Titanic's passengers noticed it also. There is no mention of haze in Marengo's logs. There is no mention of peculiar visibility or any visibility for that matter. There is no mention of any multiple and/or unusual light.It is not entirely clear what "much refraction" means and/or how it was noted. It is unclear on what horizon there was "much refraction". Was it all around Marengo or only to the west or only to the east or (and so on). However, I still believe that Marengo's logs are relevant to establish there was super refraction that affected the visibility of the iceberg and communications with the Californian" .

maps1 copy.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: T Maltin
M

Mila

Guest
So far, Tim has not responded.
Well, Julian, it proves one more time that you have attacked me without reading my exchange with Tim.
Tim responded a few times in this very thread, and he still believes that he was right.
 
Mar 22, 2003
4,901
548
243
Chicago, IL, USA
The correction for pressure and temperature under non-standard conditions is not very much, just a few minutes of arc at most. I don't believe the words "much refraction" would have been entered into a log book just because conditions were not standard. But I do agree that much refraction does not mean that there was mirage conditions. It is also apparent that Marengo was nowhere near Titanic, and one cannot apply air/sea temperatures that were encountered in one place on a given date to another place and time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Currie
M

Mila

Guest
The correction for pressure and temperature under non-standard conditions is not very much, just a few minutes of arc at most .
Hi Sam, What do you mean?
Here's a quote from the article published in the new York Time
A New Look at Nature’s Role in the Titanic’s Sinking
The icy waters that night created ideal conditions for an unusual kind of mirage, according to Mr. Maltin, who owns a public relations firm in London and has written three books on the Titanic. Andrew T. Young, an astronomer and mirage specialist at San Diego State University, helped him refine his [I thought somebody suggested a super refraction back in 1992] theory. [my bolding]
As you see Tim connects the mirage with "icy water". Marengo was in a relatively warm water, much warmer than the air. It should matter. Who knows what kind of "refraction" Marengo observed. In addition, Dr. Young who is mentioned here, and who Tim mentioned in this very thread was not able to come up with a simulation to account for either a mirage-associated problems with the visibility of the iceberg or for "low-lying" rockets.