Jim Currie
Senior Member
Hello lads!
My how a new discovery gets the grey-matter working! Mine was obviously experiencing a 'virus'. Thanks for the correction Sam!
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will note that I did make allowances for discrepancies etc. I specifically wrote:
"All these times only hold good for time-pieces which were submerged at exactly the same moment and were synchonised with the ship's chronometers.".
As for your exampes:
You wrote:
"There is no good reason for passengers, victualling staff or day workers to carry partially adjusted time on their timepieces.
There certainly is no obvious reason in the case for day workers and passengers but there would be for 12 to 4am puplic room and night watch stewards. There is evidence of such stewards waiting to go on duty when impact took place and they would most certainly not be waiting any more than 15 minutes to do so. So what time would they have? And what clocks would those already on duty be 'watching' to see if their reliefs were on time?
As for passengers and victualling staff on day work:
It would be an arbitrary decision on the part of passengers but the latter would have made a full 47 minute set-back before turning-in.
This means that if impact took place at or about 11-40pm unaltered time, day-workers would have ( 11-40pm minus 47 minutes )10-53pm on their personal time pieces.
If however the clocks showing 11-40pm at time of impact had already been set-back 24 minutes at time of impact, then time pieces which had been set back the full 47 minutes would show( 11-40pm minus 23 minutes ) 11-17pm.
To check for evidence of day-worker time evidence, I refer you to the evidence given by Assistant First Class Cook John Collins to Senator Bourne on Day 7 of the US Senate Inquiry.
Collins was very specific about times on his personal clock.; even correcting time for clock error.
He was awakened by the impact at 11-20pm by his bedside clock. However, he told his questioner that his clock was 5 minutes fast therefore the true time on his fully set-back clock was 11-15pm.
I chose Collins particularly because he was a 'first-tripper'. As such, he would have wished to make absolutely sure that he did not blot his 'copy-book' on his first ship my sleeping-in or arriving late for work.
If Collins was wakened by the impact at 11-15pm on a fully retarded clock and the ship time of impact was 11-40pm then we have to add 47 minutes to Collins's time to get the April 14.. unadjusted..time of impact. This gives a time of 2 minutes past Midnight April 14 for the moment of impact
As you say, there are many questions unanswered. Two of these immediately come to mind.
I think of Algernon Barkworth and those purported to be waiting up for a clock change:
I can easily understand passengers waiting up an extra 25 minutes to check their watches; but over 3/4 of an hour? Very strange indeed!
Then there's the evidence of Colonel Gracie: He stated that he was awakened by the impact at 12 o'clock yet also states that by the same time-piece, the ship went down at 02-22am. Also very strange indeed.
I understand that he changed his evidence at a later date. Even more strange!
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the main point here is the time showing on that recovered chronometer.
The chronometers were the best protected time recorders on board that ship. Every other time-keeping device was of varying quality and accuracy and if stopped, did so at vaying times depending on immersion in the sea.
If we readily use the evidence of all these other time-keeping devices to prove our various points, then we must, in all honesty use the evidence provided by this particular chronometer.
It has been suggested that it might have been tampered-with. If so, why would they chose a particular setting which could only have one reference to the accident.. nomatter how vague?
The following cannot be disputed.
If the time of Titanic sinking was 15d 02h 20min and the recovered chronometer had been set to GMT it would have showed 05-18am when it stopped. One set to EST would show 00-18pm.
But why, in any case, did Titanic Carry 2 chronometers?
It has been suggested she did so in case one broke-down. I quote from "Michael, Brother of Jerry" by Jack London:
" 'But if you only have two chronometers, how can you tell which has gone wrong?' Captain Doane would demand."
Perhaps Titanic's second chronometer was set to EST so that if the first one went kaput on the way across the pond, the second would continue to give good service until it could be checked in New York and the other one put ashore there for repair or renewal? Now that would make good sense.
Jim C.
My how a new discovery gets the grey-matter working! Mine was obviously experiencing a 'virus'. Thanks for the correction Sam!
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will note that I did make allowances for discrepancies etc. I specifically wrote:
"All these times only hold good for time-pieces which were submerged at exactly the same moment and were synchonised with the ship's chronometers.".
As for your exampes:
You wrote:
"There is no good reason for passengers, victualling staff or day workers to carry partially adjusted time on their timepieces.
There certainly is no obvious reason in the case for day workers and passengers but there would be for 12 to 4am puplic room and night watch stewards. There is evidence of such stewards waiting to go on duty when impact took place and they would most certainly not be waiting any more than 15 minutes to do so. So what time would they have? And what clocks would those already on duty be 'watching' to see if their reliefs were on time?
As for passengers and victualling staff on day work:
It would be an arbitrary decision on the part of passengers but the latter would have made a full 47 minute set-back before turning-in.
This means that if impact took place at or about 11-40pm unaltered time, day-workers would have ( 11-40pm minus 47 minutes )10-53pm on their personal time pieces.
If however the clocks showing 11-40pm at time of impact had already been set-back 24 minutes at time of impact, then time pieces which had been set back the full 47 minutes would show( 11-40pm minus 23 minutes ) 11-17pm.
To check for evidence of day-worker time evidence, I refer you to the evidence given by Assistant First Class Cook John Collins to Senator Bourne on Day 7 of the US Senate Inquiry.
Collins was very specific about times on his personal clock.; even correcting time for clock error.
He was awakened by the impact at 11-20pm by his bedside clock. However, he told his questioner that his clock was 5 minutes fast therefore the true time on his fully set-back clock was 11-15pm.
I chose Collins particularly because he was a 'first-tripper'. As such, he would have wished to make absolutely sure that he did not blot his 'copy-book' on his first ship my sleeping-in or arriving late for work.
If Collins was wakened by the impact at 11-15pm on a fully retarded clock and the ship time of impact was 11-40pm then we have to add 47 minutes to Collins's time to get the April 14.. unadjusted..time of impact. This gives a time of 2 minutes past Midnight April 14 for the moment of impact
As you say, there are many questions unanswered. Two of these immediately come to mind.
I think of Algernon Barkworth and those purported to be waiting up for a clock change:
I can easily understand passengers waiting up an extra 25 minutes to check their watches; but over 3/4 of an hour? Very strange indeed!
Then there's the evidence of Colonel Gracie: He stated that he was awakened by the impact at 12 o'clock yet also states that by the same time-piece, the ship went down at 02-22am. Also very strange indeed.
I understand that he changed his evidence at a later date. Even more strange!
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the main point here is the time showing on that recovered chronometer.
The chronometers were the best protected time recorders on board that ship. Every other time-keeping device was of varying quality and accuracy and if stopped, did so at vaying times depending on immersion in the sea.
If we readily use the evidence of all these other time-keeping devices to prove our various points, then we must, in all honesty use the evidence provided by this particular chronometer.
It has been suggested that it might have been tampered-with. If so, why would they chose a particular setting which could only have one reference to the accident.. nomatter how vague?
The following cannot be disputed.
If the time of Titanic sinking was 15d 02h 20min and the recovered chronometer had been set to GMT it would have showed 05-18am when it stopped. One set to EST would show 00-18pm.
But why, in any case, did Titanic Carry 2 chronometers?
It has been suggested she did so in case one broke-down. I quote from "Michael, Brother of Jerry" by Jack London:
" 'But if you only have two chronometers, how can you tell which has gone wrong?' Captain Doane would demand."
Perhaps Titanic's second chronometer was set to EST so that if the first one went kaput on the way across the pond, the second would continue to give good service until it could be checked in New York and the other one put ashore there for repair or renewal? Now that would make good sense.
Jim C.
