Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
91
39
48
any air in the fresh water tanks either side of the electric generators , would be trapped, because the entrance / exit vents were at the top? so as the stern tilted, before and after break up.. that air would be trapped in the tanks? i dont know where the valves were, but even if they had bottom drain valves and top fill valves , it not vertical the air inside would not be able to reach an exit on tilting? its minor maybe but they were big tanks... i cant remember the exact size this mo.. any trapped air in them would undergo increased compression as the stern sank.. deeper.. until such time as the outside pressure was greater than the tank could could stand... so either the tank would begin to split weak points or the tank itself would collapse.. it depends on how much trapped air was in them, and wether it could escape by exit points at the tops or not.. were any of the titanics fresh water tanks in the stern found intact?
 

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
91
39
48
Cam Houseman, the water tanks were on the generator deck, not the turbine or engine room... when the stern hit the bottom both sides of the hull blew out.. so i doubt wether the tanks survived that shock. but supposing air could have been trapped in them when the stern flooded and the stern went vertical and sank before levelling out,, and pirouetting down, any trapped air in them would either burst the tanks, or the tank would implode at depth, its about the only place i can see, that implosion could happen., its not impossible, but unlikely i think, even given the structure of those tanks and they supported a lot of weight of water in use,they were not designed as pressure tanks... so would fail under pressure..

1626522559170.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
91
39
48
its an interesting subject, i understand corks were pushed into bottles for example, but cans in those days were sealed in lead? ( it poisoned the arctic explorers for example ) and lead compounds are soft, so anything sealed with a lead based solder would not withstand any great pressure. look how big lead pipes had to be, and they were still being used into the 1960 `s, and lead on copper pipes was still common until recently.. and much pipework in existence still - has lead compound sealing.. its certainly good up to few bars of pressure... but would not last long in cans of the titanic era that went down such a depth.. even if the tin was stronger, the lead would be pushed into the can... equalising the pressure difference.. as for the freezer rooms the seals on those were for insulation not pressure, and were no more effective at water sealing, than a fridge or freezer door is now... even if locked water would get in, and out.. so would air... it was just a temperature difference. not a pressure seal.. ? as others have already described here, i think there is very little evidence that large volumes of air, large enough to cause failure of superstructure by implosion, ever happened on the stern... but small ones? like the water tanks with the valves shut and the air inside displaced so it could not escape? possibly.. and other items, like thermometers, maybe, and vacuum globes, screw top half filled bottles those kind of things might have ... but not enough to cause the superstructure to fold in on itself. because the pressure on it was greater on one side than the other.. its interesting to discover the condition of cans and bottles that have been to such depths the Titanic is.. i am sure there are folks who have examples of what happens to a can or half filled screw top bottle, or a cork top bottle under such external pressure... its actually quite remarkable that the air trapped in china, found a way to escape without breaking it.. but certainly it explains why some wood, was fractured to pieces... if it went down a depth sufficient to cause the fibres compression, quickly enough to expel trapped air in them.. the action is implosion but the wood would explode with air escape... if fast enough.. ? one can see a similarity in a log when burning on a fire,,, the reason is temperature not pressure, but still the wood explodes with a crack as the air escapes..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nov 14, 2005
2,254
1,144
308
its an interesting subject, i understand corks were pushed into bottles for example, but cans in those days were sealed in lead? ( it poisoned the arctic explorers for example ) and lead compounds are soft, so anything sealed with a lead based solder would not withstand any great pressure. look how big lead pipes had to be, and they were still being used into the 1960 `s, and lead on copper pipes was still common until recently.. and much pipework in existence still - has lead compound sealing.. its certainly good up to few bars of pressure... but would not last long in cans of the titanic era that went down such a depth.. even if the tin was stronger, the lead would be pushed into the can... equalising the pressure difference.. as for the freezer rooms the seals on those were for insulation not pressure, and were no more effective at water sealing, than a fridge or freezer door is now... even if locked water would get in, and out.. so would air... it was just a temperature difference. not a pressure seal.. ? as others have already described here, i think there is very little evidence that large volumes of air, large enough to cause failure of superstructure by implosion, ever happened on the stern... but small ones? like the water tanks with the valves shut and the air inside displaced so it could not escape? possibly.. and other items, like thermometers, maybe, and vacuum globes, screw top half filled bottles those kind of things might have ... but not enough to cause the superstructure to fold in on itself. because the pressure on it was greater on one side than the other.. its interesting to discover the condition of cans and bottles that have been to such depths the Titanic is.. i am sure there are folks who have examples of what happens to a can or half filled screw top bottle, or a cork top bottle under such external pressure... its actually quite remarkable that the air trapped in china, found a way to escape without breaking it.. but certainly it explains why some wood, was fractured to pieces... if it went down a depth sufficient to cause the fibres compression, quickly enough to expel trapped air in them.. the action is implosion but the wood would explode with air escape... if fast enough.. ? one can see a similarity in a log when burning on a fire,,, the reason is temperature not pressure, but still the wood explodes with a crack as the air escapes..
You bring up some interesting points. I need to go look if there were other tanks such as lube oil, air compressor tanks...ect. But even if they had them they would only be as strong as their weakest link. Outlet/inlet valves, drain/check valves, gauges ect. Worked on a lot of tanks/vessels and leaks were always a problem. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
91
39
48
Steven Christian, what you describe regarding pressure leaks , is just the same as what happened as the Titanic sank.. only in reverse.. isnt it.... ? my small air compressor will go up to 100 psi.. but even when its outlet valve is closed, it leaks slowly, over a couple of hours or so... that 100 psi will be nearly zero - very few things on the Titanic were sealed even as well as that.. and the pressure they were subjected too, was far greater.. even say at only 500 feet its over 230 psi... water surrounding any possible space would be entering at that force.. i dont think there were many possible internal spaces that would stand even that difference side to side, and air was being squezed out very quickly...,, the further down one goes, as the pressure increases even more, air spaces in things like wood,coal, mastic frame and steel seals, cork, lead based seals, will all be compacting, and edge to edge seals in the hull itself would weep sealing compounds... as far as i can tell then, at only 500 feet the pressure was already above what any steam feed might contain.. in a closed space on the titanic, and by 1000 feet its double... anything with air in it, was having it squeezed out - often i suspect with explosive force... imagine turning open an air compressor valve at over 400 psi.. and thats at only 1000 feet.. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
91
39
48
As a further aside, i understand that during the second world war, sonar operators could hear the groans of compression as a sinking vessel sank and the bangs and crashes as compression caused swift explosive air release - all of no part of the cause of the reason the vessel sank..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSYmyZANYmY
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
2,254
1,144
308
As a further aside, i understand that during the second world war, sonar operators could hear the groans of compression as a sinking vessel sank and the bangs and crashes as compression caused swift explosive air release - all of no part of the cause of the reason the vessel sank..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSYmyZANYmY
Funny that you should post that link as I have been seeing those vids over the last week or so. I've been watching some podcasts that ex navy sonar men have been posting on the USS Thresher. A bunch of documents were recently declassified and if true the story of the Thresher is not as we were told. As in the implosion of all the spaces were not as quick as they said. I'm not sure of it's accuracy or if it's just click bait. Plus its so technical I only understood about half of it with the lingo that sonar men use. It wouldn't be the first time the Navy buffaloed the public but if true I can understand why in this case they would do it. But it is like apples and oranges comparing Titanic to a pressure hull of a sub. At least the more modern ones. I've read that early WW1 subs had a crush depth of around 300 feet or so. If accurate I couldn't see any of Titanic's spaces making it much further than that. But since you seem to be interested in the topic (of implosions) I'll post the link and you can make of it what you will. Like I said I don't know what to make of it's conclusions. I still have questions. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
91
39
48
Yes, Steven Christian - for me the audio of the tug boat is most important, since it was an ordinary vessel, - like you say, and as Titanic was, not designed to be submerged at depth greater than than the hull for any length of time... so its bangs and crashes, as it sank at depth, do show that the stresses on the hull, by compression, and explosive release of those are common... even on something as simple in design as a tug boat.. in this subject of implosion possibility, i dont want to assign to much to what happens to a sub.. since its hull failure isnt bit by bit... its usually instant and all of it.. compared to a floating vessel that compacts in different places over time when it sinks - due to the gradual and increasing ingress of water, and compression of air causing explosive failure of parts. Buoyancy is an interesting part of what happened to the hull of the Titanic as it sank, since initially, the less dense parts of the vessel, especially wood, (naturally filled with air) ... and even later, the coal in the coal bunkers and bottles with air in etc etc,, would be resisting the downward force of gravity.. until the air in them was squeezed out by the surrounding pressure difference.. or the components of the air, like nitrogen, disolved in the fluid the air was above.. ( like CO2 in a fizzy drink ) a modern example would be a styrofoam cup, which gets smaller by compression at depth.. so would all the compressible things on the Titanic... but where the air could apply a greater force than the thing holding it... it would escape with explosive force... so, one can imagine that that is what would happen to a human body trapped inside a flooded part of the Titanic... already dead by drowning.. it is not the same effect as what happens to compressionable things in a sub.. at depth implosion - because that is instant application of pressure, not gradual increase over time.. so on the Titanic, some bottles would have the corks forced out. gradually.. because of the diference in pressure over length and the buoancy difference top to bottom and a length of upright wood , and a pile of 8 ft high coal in a metal compartment would be affected the same.. while the trapped air can still exert a greater force than that which contains it.. even when the Titanic reached 500 feet, things that could break free, were doing so, Some parts would break free, but not have sufficient buoancy at that depth to rise to the surface - so i sense there would be a lot of things, in transit that had broke free... but now were in a jumbled mass of layers still below the surface, free of the hull, which very soon would hit the ocean floor.. it does describe why some internal things were found some distance from the main hull.. and why so much of the wood is missing.. if it could break free - it did. if it couldnt, every bit of air was squeezed out of it... replaced by seawater.. and its still there.. if one had sonar then, the sinking of the Titanic would have been a very noisy thing to hear.. lots of cracks and bangs, thousands of tiny implosions in the wood.. all the light bulbs still intact for example and explosive bangs of released air.. and compression crack noise - much more than the recording i share of the tugboat..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,148
495
158
16
Maryland, USA
As a further aside, i understand that during the second world war, sonar operators could hear the groans of compression as a sinking vessel sank and the bangs and crashes as compression caused swift explosive air release - all of no part of the cause of the reason the vessel sank..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSYmyZANYmY
Hm, fascinating! And People in the lifeboats did hear groaning/banging/and other Loud noises after the stern disappeared.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
As a wise person once said "Don't fall in love with your own theory. You could all to easily be proven wrong, and in science, being proven wrong is always a possibility."

It looks to me like some are hung up on it did/did not implode as if this was a one or another all-or-nothing proposition.

It's not.

What happened was a very dynamic event which started with the catastrophic failure of the hull girder, followed by the structurally compromised stern coming apart as it plunged through the water column then impacting violently on the bottom. Certain closed/sealed compartments such as cold storage would have imploded but the rest of the stern did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,529
936
388
65
Superb post sir.

As a wise person once said "Don't fall in love with your own theory. You could all to easily be proven wrong, and in science, being proven wrong is always a possibility."
Unfortunately, that is exactly what seems to be happening here with many posts. I hate to say it, but I am beginning to wonder - by the way some posts are worded - if posters are blurred between the difference between as explosive effect and an implosion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
91
39
48
i think it was a very noisy descent, even at 250 feet, ( over 100 psi ) local compression force was enough to make supposedly sealed items burst lids with air, and if you have ever dived into water you know how noisy air bubbles are. Water is an excellent sound transmitter, whales use it. Obviously some of the loud noises, were the still collapsing parts of the break.. and parts buoyant enough to break free.. and parts still able to fall on their own. The increasing speed of the descent, ( and the increasing pressure ) would cause noise and vibration in even the hulls of the lifeboats.. One has to imagine that as air escapes, it might collect in a previously flooded space... where its trapped..Although it was flooded naturally and without pressure difference on its sides, it now has collected air oneside, and water pressure below and above it. It cant equalize because the air is there, so it will either fail at its seams ( the air finds a way out.) or as described the air dissolves into the water.Eventually though,if nothing gives way. it might implode, but my own feeling is it just gets squeezed... as it descends, until that squeezing causes fracture. Then all that fizzy water explodes out of that hole, like taking the top off a fizzy drink bottle.. but it is wrong to suppose that in 1912, the manufacture of parts, was such that their uniformity was in a very tight known limit. How one bit of steel or one bit of wood , or one casting, or one tin can, or one lightbulb reacted to particular circumstance at the time it failed - is outside the scope. I am not advocating implosion or explosion... i just suggest what " might" have taken place :) isnt that worth considering?even at item level? i had to take the same approach when i considered the generator control room..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
Superb post sir.


Unfortunately, that is exactly what seems to be happening here with many posts. I hate to say it, but I am beginning to wonder - by the way some posts are worded - if posters are blurred between the difference between as explosive effect and an implosion.

I try to keep things as straightforward. What I see here at first blush is a study in overthinking the problem on the one hand coupled with the notion that it HAS to be one thing or another instead of "C" All of the above.

The reality was that once the structural integrity of the ship was compromised, the break up just kick started everything else which followed. It was a very dynamic event with a lot of things happening, and it's nothing short of amazing that the stern section made it to the bottom in any recognizable form at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Nov 14, 2005
2,254
1,144
308
Yes, Steven Christian - for me the audio of the tug boat is most important, since it was an ordinary vessel, - like you say, and as Titanic was, not designed to be submerged at depth greater than than the hull for any length of time... so its bangs and crashes, as it sank at depth, do show that the stresses on the hull, by compression, and explosive release of those are common... even on something as simple in design as a tug boat.. in this subject of implosion possibility, i dont want to assign to much to what happens to a sub.. since its hull failure isnt bit by bit... its usually instant and all of it.. compared to a floating vessel that compacts in different places over time when it sinks - due to the gradual and increasing ingress of water, and compression of air causing explosive failure of parts. Buoyancy is an interesting part of what happened to the hull of the Titanic as it sank, since initially, the less dense parts of the vessel, especially wood, (naturally filled with air) ... and even later, the coal in the coal bunkers and bottles with air in etc etc,, would be resisting the downward force of gravity.. until the air in them was squeezed out by the surrounding pressure difference.. or the components of the air, like nitrogen, disolved in the fluid the air was above.. ( like CO2 in a fizzy drink ) a modern example would be a styrofoam cup, which gets smaller by compression at depth.. so would all the compressible things on the Titanic... but where the air could apply a greater force than the thing holding it... it would escape with explosive force... so, one can imagine that that is what would happen to a human body trapped inside a flooded part of the Titanic... already dead by drowning.. it is not the same effect as what happens to compressionable things in a sub.. at depth implosion - because that is instant application of pressure, not gradual increase over time.. so on the Titanic, some bottles would have the corks forced out. gradually.. because of the diference in pressure over length and the buoancy difference top to bottom and a length of upright wood , and a pile of 8 ft high coal in a metal compartment would be affected the same.. while the trapped air can still exert a greater force than that which contains it.. even when the Titanic reached 500 feet, things that could break free, were doing so, Some parts would break free, but not have sufficient buoancy at that depth to rise to the surface - so i sense there would be a lot of things, in transit that had broke free... but now were in a jumbled mass of layers still below the surface, free of the hull, which very soon would hit the ocean floor.. it does describe why some internal things were found some distance from the main hull.. and why so much of the wood is missing.. if it could break free - it did. if it couldnt, every bit of air was squeezed out of it... replaced by seawater.. and its still there.. if one had sonar then, the sinking of the Titanic would have been a very noisy thing to hear.. lots of cracks and bangs, thousands of tiny implosions in the wood.. all the light bulbs still intact for example and explosive bangs of released air.. and compression crack noise - much more than the recording i share of the tugboat..
Yes. Like I and others have said if the reports are true there was a lot of stuff coming apart and crashing out of the stern. That coupled with her being torn apart there just wouldn't be much left to implode other than a few minor spaces. And any of those would have gone rather quickly (shallow). Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,148
495
158
16
Maryland, USA
What happened was a very dynamic event which started with the catastrophic failure of the hull girder, followed by the structurally compromised stern coming apart as it plunged through the water column then impacting violently on the bottom. Certain closed/sealed compartments such as cold storage would have imploded
This, is what I mean, thank you Michael.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,148
495
158
16
Maryland, USA
Superb post sir.


Unfortunately, that is exactly what seems to be happening here with many posts. I hate to say it, but I am beginning to wonder - by the way some posts are worded - if posters are blurred between the difference between as explosive effect and an implosion.
Probably. As you can see I'm only good with the wreck ;)
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
287
18
263
No, it did not "implode". Had it imploded, it would be a ball of iron, smaller than the original ship. Implosion brings the outer edges towards the middle. Also, if it HAD been implosion, then areas of the bow would have imploded as well on the way down. Pressure causes 3 Liters of air to reduce in volume to approximately 1 mL at that depth. Someone mentioned above that "air escaped" - that would be explosion. The theory I subscribe to the most is that the stern opening was greatly damaged in the breakup, and as the stern fell, it fell with a great speed, and hammered the ocean floor. As it rotated downward, more damage was done and the weaknesses in materials cascaded inward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,148
495
158
16
Maryland, USA
Hi Bill! How're you? :)

I don't mean the entire Stern, but rooms , few at that, like say the Refridgerated cargo, the Third Class Store, maybe. It'd be impossible for the entire Stern to implode. And yeah, most of the damage is impact, and water passage throughout the ship. That bend (Mr. Roy Mengot figures 5-10 degrees?) around the Second Class Entrance didn't help either. I figure it blew out the Starboard hull.

You mention the Bow. But, when the bow plummeted, wasn't it mostly fully flooded, and water coming through the aft end filled any remaining spces?
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,529
936
388
65
None of the public rooms or cabins were water tight. When the break-up occurred exposing the deck spaces and mangling the hull, almost all air filled spaces within the stern would have been opened up and subject to rapid flooding. This would have occurred almost as soon as the stern started to sink and as water displaced the air outwards, the water pressure between the inside and outside of the sinking stern would have rapidly narrowed. Therefore, the stern as such would not implode. IF there were any sealed spaces that were not breached during the break-up and remained water tight even at depth, theoretically those might have imploded but I do not think that there were any such spaces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads