Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,212
531
188
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
2,212
531
188
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
2,594
983
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
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
Hi Arun, howwas your day?

When you say mangling the hull, what do you mean? Nothing major happened until impact, IMO.
Survivors did hear explosions after the stern went under, the bow is in better condition than the stern which looks like a bomb was detonated over it. The stern wasn't fully filled with water when it sank unlike the bow.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
When you say mangling the hull, what do you mean?
I meant the graphic depiction of the break-up in the OASOG video animation. Yes,, I know it is only an animation but IMO it comes close to being what actually could have happened. Considering the forces involved in literally tearing apart of a 46,000 ton (net) steel ship, it could never have been an 'almost clean' break like shown in some other animations. In the OASOG one, you can see that there was mangling, buckling and smaller breaks in the stern section during the major split. With that sort of thing happening outside and exposing the deck spaces etc, I do not believe that cabins, public spaces and such like would have remained anywhere close to being intact. Therefore, when flooding occurred, all those spaces would have filled up fairly rapidly and the air displaced thereof would have exerted an outward force. The flooding would also have brought the pressure difference between outside and inside of the stern section to minimal levels and so an 'implosion' would NOT have occurred.

Nothing major happened until impact, IMO
So, you think that peeling back of the decks, breaking away of the outer plating and structures inside falling out during the descent of the stern section is not a 'major event'? I don't believe that the scattered debris field around the stern could have been caused by the impact with the sea floor alone.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,212
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
So, you think that peeling back of the decks, breaking away of the outer plating and structures inside falling out during the descent of the stern section is not a 'major event'? I don't believe that the scattered debris field around the stern could have been caused by the impact with the sea floor alone.
Well, no, that is not what I referred to. I thought you meant the outer hull itself. Of course things like the deck peeling away and thousands of deck structures and debris and other items is quite major. The peeling back of the Poop deck and the utter destruction of everything around the Smoking Room is something I'd say is pretty major. Thanks for clarifying!

While yes those contributed to the flooding, those were mostly in the forward sections, the Bulkheads aft were found to be pretty intact in some areas, and they're what keeping the Stern up now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
105
47
73
squeezing air out, because air is more buoyant and so rises upward.. is far more likely than implosion.. because the pressure difference even over tens of feet is big... so air is squeezed up as the ship descends.. as it did so, both the main part and the stern would look like a fizzy drink... and as the stern sank, initially vertically, props up... as any video of such an event shows.. air is pushed to the stern... it erupts out of any hole, vent, porthole,supposedly sealed deck, supposedly sealed cover plates et al.. of the very few places there might have been air trapped, the tunnel over the props which had watertight sealed doors is one possibility.. the fresh water tanks are another, and sealed hull cavities too. but if water can get in, ( and thats why it was a sealed tunnel) air can get out too... but maybe not fast enough.. it was fast increase in pressure.. what would fail first? ive no idea.. i suspect the doors seals, pushed in or out... , the tanks would fail at seams, but the cavities in the hull? some of those air traps might have survived a fair while until the steel gave up at the rivet seams.. in all honesty apart from those three places ive mentioned, once the fourth funnel entrance was taking in water.. through the shattered staircases and passages -there were no open spaces that would not flood.. all the broken off pipes into the engine room first first let water into the dynamo and generator room.. the weight of the engines pulling the stern under,, the more water is able to find ways in.. and once into the fourth funnel spaces.. the stairways and passageways.. nothing above the shaft tunnel space had any large quantity of air in it... ?
 

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
132
142
88
UK
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.

This!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
How could the survivors "hear implosions" from below the surface sitting in lifeboats? That's ridiculous.

First of all, how could anyone in a lifeboat distinguish the sounds they heard to be 'implosions'? While it is true that sound travels far more efficiently underwater, it also dissipates very differently. If being heard from the surface by someone in a boat, it would be after that sounds has emerged into the air and that changes its nature significantly.

So, if anyone heard sounds from the sinking stern from below the surface and recognized them to be 'implosions' they were badly mistaken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
Survivors did hear implosions beneath the waves after the stern sank.
No they did not. People like Edith Rosenbaum reported hearing "explosive" sounds.

I am a retired experienced scuba diver and know exactly what underwater sounds are like up to 52 metres - about 160 feet - (my own max depth reached)

Answers From The Abyss documentary will explain it
I have seen that documentary; in fact I have a video of it.

In the first place, the opinions expressed in that documentary are of a handful of experts which is open to discussion with others similarly qualified. There are many questionable comments in it; they speak of implosive effects at depths of 200 feet but human technical divers go deeper than that. Also, there are several wrecks at the depths and deeper with no implosive effects.

The documentary repeatedly refers to the wreck as an "exploded mess" as though a bomb had hit it; that's right. The probability of the refrigeration compartment 'imploding' is rather confusingly worded. What they are trying to say is that where there was air trapped in watertight compartments, the increasing water pressure from outside compressed that air till it blasted out with explosive force. They were definitely not saying that the stern imploded.

Even the compressive forces presumed exerted on closed compartments like the refrigeration chamber depend on several variables.

  1. That such closed compartments in the stern section remained intact when the traumatic break-up occurred.
  2. That there was significant amount of trapped air within and without an avenue of escape.
  3. That the water-tightness of such chambers remained as the stern sank, without allowing water to steadily seep in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nov 14, 2005
2,308
1,203
308
Answers From The Abyss documentary will explain it
Like Arun and others have said I don't believe that the stern imploded. There was just too much damage from her ripping apart and stuff crashing out of her. But thanks for posting the vid. I checked out the guys channel and there are one or two vids I must have missed. At least I don't remember them. Will watch them when I get the chance. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
105
47
73
No they did not. People like Edith Rosenbaum reported hearing "explosive" sounds.

I am a retired experienced scuba diver and know exactly what underwater sounds are like up to 52 metres - about 160 feet - (my own max depth reached)

I have seen that documentary; in fact I have a video of it.

In the first place, the opinions expressed in that documentary are of a handful of experts which is open to discussion with others similarly qualified. There are many questionable comments in it; they speak of implosive effects at depths of 200 feet but human technical divers go deeper than that. Also, there are several wrecks at the depths and deeper with no implosive effects.

The documentary repeatedly refers to the wreck as an "exploded mess" as though a bomb had hit it; that's right. The probability of the refrigeration compartment 'imploding' is rather confusingly worded. What they are trying to say is that where there was air trapped in watertight compartments, the increasing water pressure from outside compressed that air till it blasted out with explosive force. They were definitely not saying that the stern imploded.

Even the compressive forces presumed exerted on closed compartments like the refrigeration chamber depend on several variables.

  1. That such closed compartments in the stern section remained intact when the traumatic break-up occurred.
  2. That there was significant amount of trapped air within and without an avenue of escape.
  3. That the water-tightness of such chambers remained as the stern sank, without allowing water to steadily seep in.
As Arun Vajpey says, freezer compartments were not designed to keep pressure in or out.. they were and still are designed to maintain a temperature , using insulation between two areas of different temperature.. they were / are not watertight, and no more air tight than a modern fridge freezer is now? More so, it would assume that to seal against pressure, the doors and seals were such a perfect fit for the whole contact area, that the effect of water ingress into the area those freezers were in.. was uniform too, and the pressure on any part if the doors at the time of sinking meant that the air inside the doors could not open any parts of the supposed water tight door seal.. That supposition is nonsense.. the ingress of water was not uniform, the pressures on the doors at sinking was not uniform.. the seals were not water tight or air tight completely... even though if the inside of the freezer area is so cold , the air gets less dense and tries to pull the doors shut.. i dont think freezer seal technology was that good in 1912... ? Those doors had to be able to be opened easily by hand.. and there is the probability that the freezer rooms had drains... for clean down after defrosting. , there are electrical pipe entry points, for the lights -freezer gas expansion pipe entry points, those rooms are not pressure tight.. BUT,,, after all that.... the freezer system was sealed pipework... able to withstand pressure differences necessary to compress the freezer gas.. i believe was C02, quite how any such sealed pipework and and valves and pumps reacted to the pressure increase as the stern sank.. i dont know...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
Freezer compartments were not designed to keep pressure in or out.. they were and still are designed to maintain a temperature , using insulation between two areas of different temperature.. they were / are not watertight, and no more air tight than a modern fridge freezer is now?
Precisely. How and why would they have made food freezer compartments water tight? They probably don't do that now, let alone in 1912. What would be the point, anyway? The food and drink in those compartment are of use only if the ship is floating on a voyage and for the people in it to consume the contents. Why would anyone to the expense and effort to make a freezer compartment water-tight at depth? I would imagine it would not be for the benefit of wreck-divers should they feel hungry during the dive. :D
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,212
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
Hopefully he meant not the entire Stern, but most likely those rooms deep within imploded.

On the Stern wreck, The Starboard side of the Stern of C, D, and E-Deck where the well deck was is crushed inwards and collapsed.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Try this for size.
Stern Distortion .jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
On the Stern wreck, The Starboard side of the Stern of C, D, and E-Deck where the well deck was is crushed inwards and collapsed.
The stern was lying almost 2.5 miles beneath the ocean surface for more than 73 years before it was discovered.

Also, the break-up ensured that the spaces between decks were completely exposed right from the surface. Those spaces would have flooded very quickly as the stern section sank and so could NOT have imploded. The apparent "inward collapse" is more likely due to the force of impact with the ocean floor followed by ravages of time on the wreck.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads