Parks Stephenson
Member
I was going to answer, but Sam beat me to it. Now, I'm glad.
Parks
Parks
Samuel Halpern
Member
Matt: I am sorry you are taking my comment as a personal attack. It is not, and was not intended to be. There is also a big difference in what I said about how the boiler room telegraphs were controlled and what you said. My point was that these telegraphs are controlled manually by an engineer in the engine room, they are not controlled by steam valves tripping a circuit as your post #69 above suggested.
Again, I am not attacking you. I am simply suggesting that there are a lot of resources here on ET and elsewhere that can answer many of the questions concerning the construction and design of these Olympic class ships. It is not necessary to speculate on how things worked or how things were arranged or connected such as the telegraphs on the bridge.
Take care.
Again, I am not attacking you. I am simply suggesting that there are a lot of resources here on ET and elsewhere that can answer many of the questions concerning the construction and design of these Olympic class ships. It is not necessary to speculate on how things worked or how things were arranged or connected such as the telegraphs on the bridge.
Take care.
M
Matt Pereira
Guest
Well it was implied as one by how your were saying read such and such page before forming an opinion, well opinions are formed anyways and they change when reading new information but the information provided was for a more modern ship from the way i understand it from the pictures thats why i didnt read it. Plus another thing is that i basicly said the same thing i dont know how the boiler room telegraphs operated i just figured that they were operated through the engine room by some means, and the main reasion i was saying what i said was to change the fact that one guy made that the other two telegraphs were the turbine telegraphs, i figured they would be the docking bridge telegraphs cause they appeared in the olympic photograph to have astern markings also so i figured thats what it was. Not saying im 100% right, i just recently got interested in the construction. Only cause im downloading a cad software program and im going to try my hands at making 3-D blueprints and see if theres any possibility to flood sections at different angles to see how the water would flow at different angles based off the construction, not sure i might have to get the a different program but mainly i wanted to build 3-d plans. If their anygood i might post them on the site.
Matt,
Samuel was only trying to be helpful, by pointing you in the right direction for information. He was definitely not attacking you; it was constructive criticism.
It is of no use to speculate on how these instruments operated. The only way to fully understand them is to read the information, such as contained in the link that Samuel provided.
Samuel was only trying to be helpful, by pointing you in the right direction for information. He was definitely not attacking you; it was constructive criticism.
It is of no use to speculate on how these instruments operated. The only way to fully understand them is to read the information, such as contained in the link that Samuel provided.
M
Matt Pereira
Guest
Ok i see so lets see, the time i said something simmilar to that i got into alot of trouble with one of the moderators and then end up having to leave cause i said something simmilar to that. so i see i can take and basicly imply someone as an idiot and tell them basicly that their opinions dont matter unless they read a specific document even though everyone says not to belive all you read on the web and if i do that i shouldnt get any trouble from someone?
Well then i dont know what, all i know is that it was implied as a personal attack like my opinions dont matter unless i read the same material that he did, all he had to say was read this he didnt have to add in about how i shouldnt form opinions about something till after i read that, i already scaned through it and its talking about in general. it might be simmilar but i doubt titanic would be very simmilar other than the basics.
Also i said the same thing that he stated the second time yes i might have not been 100% accurate on how the boiler room telegraphs operated but i still said they were controled from the engine room, said that there was no telegraphs in the turbine room, that the two inboard telegraphs on the bridge are to the docking bridge. I in general wasnt wrong about much if any of it, but the details i was cause i never really searhed for the boiler room telegraph controls.
Well then i dont know what, all i know is that it was implied as a personal attack like my opinions dont matter unless i read the same material that he did, all he had to say was read this he didnt have to add in about how i shouldnt form opinions about something till after i read that, i already scaned through it and its talking about in general. it might be simmilar but i doubt titanic would be very simmilar other than the basics.
Also i said the same thing that he stated the second time yes i might have not been 100% accurate on how the boiler room telegraphs operated but i still said they were controled from the engine room, said that there was no telegraphs in the turbine room, that the two inboard telegraphs on the bridge are to the docking bridge. I in general wasnt wrong about much if any of it, but the details i was cause i never really searhed for the boiler room telegraph controls.
Robert T. Paige
Member
Parks-
>>By the way, Murdoch would be doing all this by feel and not by sight. Unlike in the Cameron movie, the telegraphs were not lit during open ocean transit. I think they were unlit in ANTR, but since that particular DVD refuses to load nowadays, I can't verify that.<<
Just checked this out again on my DVD of ANTR. They don't appear to be lit from within. There seems to some light coming into the bridge through the windows. The lettering on the telegraphs in ANTR and 1997 Cameron version is white on black. In the 1953 version the lettering appears to be black on white but also not lit from within. The telegraphs in the 1953 Negulesco version look very "fakey."
I had also assumed (apparently in error) that the telegraphs on the bridge and in the engine room were electrically connected rather than mechanically. Thanks for the clarification !
I have a copy of the June 1936 Souvenir Edition of The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-Builder Magazine which describes the telegraphs on RMS Queen Mary as electric : "The very complete installation of electric telegraphs comprises engine-room, docking, steering and anchor and cable equipment." (Page 67) Of course, technology had changed in the course of a quarter century between Titanic and Queen Mary.
-Robert
>>By the way, Murdoch would be doing all this by feel and not by sight. Unlike in the Cameron movie, the telegraphs were not lit during open ocean transit. I think they were unlit in ANTR, but since that particular DVD refuses to load nowadays, I can't verify that.<<
Just checked this out again on my DVD of ANTR. They don't appear to be lit from within. There seems to some light coming into the bridge through the windows. The lettering on the telegraphs in ANTR and 1997 Cameron version is white on black. In the 1953 version the lettering appears to be black on white but also not lit from within. The telegraphs in the 1953 Negulesco version look very "fakey."
I had also assumed (apparently in error) that the telegraphs on the bridge and in the engine room were electrically connected rather than mechanically. Thanks for the clarification !
I have a copy of the June 1936 Souvenir Edition of The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-Builder Magazine which describes the telegraphs on RMS Queen Mary as electric : "The very complete installation of electric telegraphs comprises engine-room, docking, steering and anchor and cable equipment." (Page 67) Of course, technology had changed in the course of a quarter century between Titanic and Queen Mary.
-Robert
Parks Stephenson
Member
Robert,
I almost missed your post...the carrier-to-noise ratio has been especially low these past few days. Must be excessive solar flare activity; either that, or something funny in the water.
Engine-order telegraphs come in many variations. I haven't checked all the films to compare what was used by the studios, but they evidently used whatever was at hand. When I was re-creating Titanic's telegraphs for use as illustration for Bill Sauder's article, I first used Cameron's telegraphs as examples to copy, but soon learned that even those custom-made telegraphs fell short of the real thing. No fault of the prop builders...it took actual recovered telegraph drums from the wrecksite to complete all the detail.
Parks
I almost missed your post...the carrier-to-noise ratio has been especially low these past few days. Must be excessive solar flare activity; either that, or something funny in the water.
Engine-order telegraphs come in many variations. I haven't checked all the films to compare what was used by the studios, but they evidently used whatever was at hand. When I was re-creating Titanic's telegraphs for use as illustration for Bill Sauder's article, I first used Cameron's telegraphs as examples to copy, but soon learned that even those custom-made telegraphs fell short of the real thing. No fault of the prop builders...it took actual recovered telegraph drums from the wrecksite to complete all the detail.
Parks
No, you should not believe everything you read. Having said that, it is your best bet to read information from authorities on the subject, such as Bill Sauder and Parks Stephenson. These people know what they're talking about.
M
Matt Pereira
Guest
Cause jason im not going to say names but some people on here that ive talked with act like they know but once i got them on a subject i really know about they were just pulling stuff out of thin air that wasnt even true. But thats why i didnt based my opinion on that website or even read it. Right now i printed out day 1 to day 3 of the U.S. Testomony and im highlighting anything that seems important and then comparing it and after comparing it settle for something in the middle cause when it comes to a group of people what they all said is on either side of the truth the truth usualy lies in the middle.
You can learn a lot from the testimony, Matt. It'll take you quite a while to read, but it's worth it if you want a full understanding of it.
Yes, most of the time.
Double checking and re-checking facts from other sources is an excellent way to verify information. Plus, it's a good idea to keep an open mind.
Yes, most of the time.
Double checking and re-checking facts from other sources is an excellent way to verify information. Plus, it's a good idea to keep an open mind.
M
Matt Pereira
Guest
Yep im not going to talk crap about anyone but I wasted lets see 14 years researching titanic, and around 12 years researching nazi technology and the fact that goverments like us, england, and russia stole the technology and claimed it as their own.
But i know the testomony will take time i just read something i didnt hear before about how Capt Smith helped lowered boat number 8 i mean physical is the way how the answer was given. But then again im on day 2 of the testomony i belive and its a steward that is giving the testomony right now.
But i know the testomony will take time i just read something i didnt hear before about how Capt Smith helped lowered boat number 8 i mean physical is the way how the answer was given. But then again im on day 2 of the testomony i belive and its a steward that is giving the testomony right now.
Well, you may get some conflicting information about that (including a lot of other events that were supposedly seen by some witnesses, but not seen by others that were in the same area) so I would take it with a grain of salt. You will encounter it many times throughout the inquiries.
M
Matt Pereira
Guest
Well i expect to get alot of conflicting information and i pray for it to be exact. cause im planing on chooseing the middle ground between what the conflicting reports said. like right now it said he lowered the boat physcialy, well if another one comes along as to turning the crank to tilt the davit outboard im going to assum he was just standing on deck thinking bout what to all do and overseeing the launching of the boats. Also im not sure where i saw this but it i think parks was talking bout the gantry door on D deck being open and now its missing, well the reasion why its missing is cause it "supposedly" fell and r.m.s. titanic inc brought it up, bout 6 years ago i went to an exibit that was down here and they had that same door in a glass case. very impressive door seemed alittle smaller than i would have thought door appeared to be 6ft tall, i was thinking more or less 6 1/2 ft tall but i guess if it is really 6 ft tall i guess people werent as tall then as they are now by average.
A
Andrew Collins
Guest
There is an excellent article about Titanic's telegraph system here:
http://titanic.marconigraph.com/mgy_eotelegraphs1.html
http://titanic.marconigraph.com/mgy_eotelegraphs1.html
In the 1997 Cameron film, on Titanic's bridge are four Engine Order Telegraphs (EOTs). They are brass with big round dials and levers, two on the left or port side and two on the right or starboard side. The EOTs are used to signal the engine room as to the speed and direction of the engines/propellers (Full Ahead, Full Astern, All Stop, etc.). The best view of all four occurs when Capt. Smith enters the partially flooded bridge for the last time.
During the film, only two of the EOTs are ever used -- the rightmost EOTs of each pair, and only one EOT is shown in the engine room.
The ship had three screws and presumably one engine each to drive each screw. Therefore, why four EOTs on the bridge? Why only one (presumably) EOT in the engine room?
During the film, only two of the EOTs are ever used -- the rightmost EOTs of each pair, and only one EOT is shown in the engine room.
The ship had three screws and presumably one engine each to drive each screw. Therefore, why four EOTs on the bridge? Why only one (presumably) EOT in the engine room?
