V Break Theory

Dec 4, 2000
3,226
476
213
When I suggest that the prow might have resurfaced, I do not envision anything like the famous sketch. That's imagination in full force. Thanks to Aaron's artwork, we can see the steep angle the bow would have to have taken. Not possible if the bow was teeter-tottering up from supporting the weight of the stern. As Aaron shows, for the sketch to have been accurate the two parts of the ship could not have been joined or the stern would already have foundered. But the stern was still on the surface at the time. In reality, the forces involved would only have caused a brief resurfacing of the prow at a relatively shallow angle.

Lots of air is always trapped inside a sinking hull. That's why so many ships seem to "explode" just at the end. Air trapped inside the hull finds its way out. Because it has been compressed at depth, it comes out like a watery explosion. As Jim pointed out, the cargo and all of the furniture inside the hull would also have contained some air and buoyancy. Every little bit helps. Nobody's pretending this residual buoyancy could have kept Titanic afloat until Carpathia arrived. But, it would have been sufficient to allow the teeter-totter effect which would have caused a small portion of the prow to show itself briefly above the water.

Water in Scotland Road simply could not have been sufficient to cause Titanic to roll upright from its starboard list. This is because until that change in stability the bow was tilted down and Scotland Road was on the high side. For water to have filled the passageway, it would have been forced to flow from a lower point to a higher point under the force of gravity. This is not possible in our world.

That said, Christophe's side view of the ship with a break does show how once water poured into the stern the midsection sank downward. This would have allowed water to flow what would then have been downhill through Scotland Road. No doubt that would have hastened the sinking to some extent.

-- David G. Brown
 
Nov 13, 2014
336
18
28
Belgium
David, I only added that image with the side view of the ship to debunk said image. IMO, that did not happen.
Regarding the resurfacing of the prow, that would have only been possible if there was enough trapped air at the prow to bring it back to the surface. I think this was not the case. Once again, I'm taking the E Deck plan:
Falbums%2Fag137%2FChristophe_Puttemans%2FScotland%2520Road%2520marked%2520stairwells_zpsm5an18nw.png

Water could have flooded the entire blue zone without being held back by a single door. The stairwells to F Deck marked red would have been exposed to water flooding the blue zones, allowing the water down. Those stairwells are everywhere along Scotland Road. This would be the result:
Titanicfl2_zps4p708heu.jpg
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
My understanding is that the port list caused the windows on C-deck to dip down almost level with the sea so that Emily Ryerson could see the water entering the rooms. It is difficult to know if the flooding was caused by the flooded compartments below rising up and entering those rooms or was it simply the port list causing the ship to lean over and for the water on the surface to spill into those cabins with the remainder of the deck amidships and starboard side being fully dry, and possibly below as well. I think when the sea reached the large corridor on E-deck the ship would settle down amidships and no longer go down by the head as the water spilled into the centre of the ship via the large staircases near the engine room. Curious to know if the sea were the entirely flood a corridor and pass the locked cabins and the floor submerged and the sea went up to the next floor, would those rooms along the corridor become pockets of air. On the wreck are all of the doors blown off by pressure?


.
 
Nov 13, 2014
336
18
28
Belgium
Many of the non-watertight doors would have given away under the water pressure when the ship was still on the surface. Kind of like it's portrayed in the 1997 film when Jack & Rose were rescuing a child.
 

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
336
18
48
Also important to consider: the doors and cabins weren't designed to be waterproof. A lot of water would have flowed under the doors and around the sides. Possibly other openings in the walls, air vents, drill holes, loose pipe fittings, etc.
 
Nov 13, 2014
336
18
28
Belgium
I do think the non-watertight doors were the most important here. Once the water pressure was high enough, any room would flood like the following corridor did, leaving virtually no air pockets:
titanic-movie-screencaps.com-16895.jpg

titanic-movie-screencaps.com-16927.jpg

titanic-movie-screencaps.com-16984.jpg

titanic-movie-screencaps.com-16988.jpg
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
My understanding is that the long Scotland road corridor did not flood entirely before the break up, as the water would move back and down the aft staircases and flood the middle of the ship underneath from that point, so all of the rooms, especially on the starboard side would be dry when the ship broke and the stern pulled down on the rear of the bow, causing it to rise until all of the air had escaped, or burst out. This could explain why Lightoller and Gracie were blown to the surface by the escaping air from the decks below which were forced down by the broken stern before they had a chance to flood properly.


.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Like this: With the port list causing the E-deck corridor to flood and the water would travel down the port side and spilling down into the rooms amidships. Curious to know how much weight would it take near the engines to cause the hull or the keel to buckle and break?




deckflooding.PNG


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
With all due respect you were not there. We can only speculate. I have read survivor accounts which said the ship was not noticeably down by the head before she broke, and Boxhall said the stern was getting pretty low in the water when it should have been getting high, and Violet Jessop said each row of lights from bow to stern sank lower in unison as each deck dipped below the surface and counted the decks 5,4,3 with no downward tilt at all, and survivors described how the ship broke and sank so unexpectedly with no panic or screams aboard her until the break up which caused an enormous explosion and according to survivors started the screaming and panic aboard. The only explanation I can gather is that the ship maintained little downward tilt during much of the evacuation because once the sea went up the forward staircases and reached the huge corridor on E-deck the flooding would naturally follow that direction and spill down into the middle of the ship breaking it in two. Survivors noted the ship was already listing to port when they saw the water flooding Scotland road so the water must have continued along this corridor aided by the port list and spilled down the end of the corridor and flooded the compartment directly below and since that was so close to the engine room the enormous added weight in that section must have caused the ship to buckle and break, long before the water had flooded the forward compartments and the decks above it, which quite possibly explains why little downward tilt was felt until she broke. The fact that survivors heard the captain say "Everyone over to the starboard side, to keep the ship up as long as possible" suggests the ship was not sinking head down and about to plunge down because moving hundreds of people to the starboard side would not have kept the ship up any longer, which emphasises that the port list was the main concern for the captain and crew with the belief that the Titanic was settling down bodily with only a slight trim by the bow.


From TV film

shipwater.jpg



Titanic sinks bodily and is pulled down amidships breaking her keel.
Titanicfl2.PNG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
This could also be a leading factor why the company tried to dismiss the entire break up because they advertised that the ship could float with any compartment flooded but when they heard the ship broke near the engine room they must have realized the added weight of water in or near that compartment was too much for the keel to handle and it buckled and broke sending the ship to the bottom. As one survivor put it "I am confident the Titanic broke in two and that is why she sank." I wonder if any alterations were made to the Olympic and Britannic near the engine room to accommodate a large volume of water flooding that compartment?


.
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
38
38
So as of now, we have two theories on the break up itself. One of them being the weight of water reaching amidships combining with the weight of heavy machinery and the other being the weight of the unsupported stern.

In the "final" 2012 sinking CGI by James Cameron, the animation shows water reaching the bridge before the propellers were even exposed.


If this were a true demonstration of the flooding and the testimonies of a low angle, early breakup were considered, wouldn't these contradict each other?

Few eyewitnesses described the bow plunging and then rising before water reached the first funnel. This plunging, in my opinion, could only be possible if the breakup were a result of gravity acting on an unsupported superstructure. If the break was an affect of the weight of water and machinery in the center of the ship, the plunging idea would be out of the picture, and the bow would only rise and not plunge.

On the other hand, another question rises from this statement: If the break occurred before water reached the bridge and the first funnel, and the bottom of the ship had not risen above sea level, what forces of gravity could possibly be acting on the stern? Wouldn't it still be supported by the surface of the water if it hadn't risen at this point?
I noticed that in the film as well as his 2012 simulation. In the film I noticed that after the first funnel fell the propellers didn't did not start rising from the water until well after the grand staircase was submerged. I notice that he kept it consistent in his more recent sinking theory with the ship sinking more bodily with an incline to the bow. However, his first simulation, he shows that the stern was well out the water by the time the waterline reached the boat deck. In the film the stern is shown to only start rising until water line is at the base of the third funnel. I wonder why he chose to contradict that in the first simulation but decided to go with it in his newest interpretation. In every other demonstration I have seen vary on how much of the stern was out of the water in relation to bow submersion, though I wonder if the ships list would have any effect. My question to you is if you consider Cameron's more recent cgi simulation as credible and do you consider the angle he suggests as the low angle theory?
 
Nov 13, 2014
336
18
28
Belgium
With all due respect you were not there.
And neither were you, or any of us. We are dependent on survivor accounts, wreck evidence, physics and documents and I can strongly recommend all of us to not just pick the pieces of testimony that suit your opinion, discard everything else and formulate a theory based on this selected 'evidence'.

I have no idea why you threw in that screenshot of the 2012 ITV Miniseries. That series was anything but historically accurate.
I have read survivor accounts which said the ship was not noticeably down by the head before she broke
...while other survivor accounts said the ship did tilt downwards. Just look at Lawrence Beesley. At midnight, just 20 minutes after the collision, he misstepped on the second class staircase even though the stairs seemed level. Major Peuchen and crew members noticed the downward slant too.
Simple physics tells us that the part of the ship filled with water will be pulled down by gravity, creating a downward slant.

Titanic sinks bodily and is pulled down amidships breaking her keel.
It seems you are rudely ignoring the pieces of evidence we bring up to disprove your opinions about the matter. I have no problem at all with different opinions (that's basically what drives this forum besides simple Q&A) but we all have to be prepared to face the facts and sometimes conclude we're wrong about something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Logan H

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,059
583
143
England
I'm having some trouble imagining Captain Smith ordering people over to the Starboard side to 'keep the ship up as long as possible'.

For the ease of maths lets imagine that each person left onboard weighed 100kgs. Then the 1500 people left equates to 150 metric tons. Since a 1 cubic metre block of water equals 1 metric ton then that equates to 150 tons of water.

If we imagine that in terms of volume that's a room 10x5x3 which is tiny.

I think Jim's post regarding the method of break up reflects everything we currently understand.

I note though, in that method, as the stern falls back but with the keel attached it would have the effect of supporting the midships area briefly allowing this area to flood and then 'sit down' in the water rather than a sudden drop which saw the bow area rise above the height of the rapidly filling midships section.

Believe it or not, I conducted some experiments with an Ice Cube tray in a washing up bowl when I did last nights dishes. All though there are some massively different bouyancy characteristics due to the use of a plastic tray, if I flood the forward end and push down on the back, I can get the tray to an even keel where the remaining empty holes fill but for the nominal bow end to rise above the other is not possible. I will contine to experiment and report my findings.

:D

Rob.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
914
373
73
18
Just last night when I was removing my contacts, I noticed a tiny bubble of air in the center of the lens with the rest filled with solution. Curious, I pushed the lens to the very bottom of the case and completely submerged it. Every time I removed my finger from the top of the contact, it floated right back to the top, no matter how deep in the case. It wasn't until the air pocket was eliminated, that it finally sank and settled to the bottom.

If I can connect this to the partially detached bow section on the Titanic, I can begin to conclude that as long as an efficient amount of air pockets remain in the ship, the air will always atempt to rise to the surface one way or another (via an 'explosion' or a resurfacing of the bow).
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
And neither were you, or any of us. We are dependent on survivor accounts, wreck evidence, physics and documents and I can strongly recommend all of us to not just pick the pieces of testimony that suit your opinion, discard everything else and formulate a theory based on this selected 'evidence'.

I have no idea why you threw in that screenshot of the 2012 ITV Miniseries. That series was anything but historically accurate.
I have read survivor accounts which said the ship was not noticeably down by the head before she broke
...while other survivor accounts said the ship did tilt downwards. Just look at Lawrence Beesley. At midnight, just 20 minutes after the collision, he misstepped on the second class staircase even though the stairs seemed level. Major Peuchen and crew members noticed the downward slant too.
Simple physics tells us that the part of the ship filled with water will be pulled down by gravity, creating a downward slant.

Titanic sinks bodily and is pulled down amidships breaking her keel.
It seems you are rudely ignoring the pieces of evidence we bring up to disprove your opinions about the matter. I have no problem at all with different opinions (that's basically what drives this forum besides simple Q&A) but we all have to be prepared to face the facts and sometimes conclude we're wrong about something.
The above screenshot shows what Violet Jessop witnessed i.e. the ship sinking bodily. I am not "rudely ignoring the pieces of evidence". I don't know where you got that from? You can't dismiss what the survivors said happened. I have heard all kinds of theories over the years and half of them are still debatable to this day because we still can't prove or disprove a great deal. I have studied the Titanic for over 20 years. We know when 5 compartments were flooded the ship would tilt downwards to the point that water would spill onto E-deck and theoretically enter the next compartment assuming there was direct access. We have no evidence of water entering the next compartment from overheard into the next compartment, but we know the ship was listing gradually to port and it makes sense that the huge Scotland Road corridor was the direction in which the water travelled next, and therefore would spill down that corridor and into the middle of the ship. I have heard no evidence to dismiss that scenario. I asked if this added weight so close to the engines was enough to cause the ship to buckle. I have heard no arguments against it, on the contrary the other members have discussed that it was possible for the prow to resurface after it broke. The fact that the captain and the officers were heard ordering everyone to the starboard side with the desire to 'balance' the ship means the port list was their main concern and the fact that Boxhall said the stern was getting very low in the water means the ship had stopped sinking down by the head and was sinking bodily which strongly emphasises that water had spilled into the middle of the ship and she was buckling under the strain of that weight until she broke. I see no evidence whatever to disprove it, so it has to remain a possible scenario, among the many others.


.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
shipportlist.PNG



I wonder if the sea poured into the open portholes on E-deck and accelerated the flooding on the port side, flooding the entire corridor much sooner than expected? Charles Joughin was asked:


Q - On E-deck are the portholes in practice opened from time to time?
A - Very, very often we keep them open the whole of the passage.

Q - So far as you know, though, of course, you could only speak of what you heard or saw, was there any order given after the accident about closing the portholes?
A - I never heard any order.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
38
38
The above screenshot shows what Violet Jessop witnessed i.e. the ship sinking bodily. I am not "rudely ignoring the pieces of evidence". I don't know where you got that from? You can't dismiss what the survivors said happened. I have heard all kinds of theories over the years and half of them are still debatable to this day because we still can't prove or disprove a great deal. I have studied the Titanic for over 20 years. We know when 5 compartments were flooded the ship would tilt downwards to the point that water would spill onto E-deck and theoretically enter the next compartment assuming there was direct access. We have no evidence of water entering the next compartment from overheard into the next compartment, but we know the ship was listing gradually to port and it makes sense that the huge Scotland Road corridor was the direction in which the water travelled next, and therefore would spill down that corridor and into the middle of the ship. I have heard no evidence to dismiss that scenario. I asked if this added weight so close to the engines was enough to cause the ship to buckle. I have heard no arguments against it, on the contrary the other members have discussed that it was possible for the prow to resurface after it broke. The fact that the captain and the officers were heard ordering everyone to the starboard side with the desire to 'balance' the ship means the port list was their main concern and the fact that Boxhall said the stern was getting very low in the water means the ship had stopped sinking down by the head and was sinking bodily which strongly emphasises that water had spilled into the middle of the ship and she was buckling under the strain of that weight until she broke.s. I see no evidence whatever to disprove it, so it has to remain a possible scenario, among the many other


.
Actually, what Puttemans said is true in relation to your ignoring evidence and picking only evidence that supports the theory you are promoting. In this very post you say "The above screenshot shows what Violet Jessop witnessed i.e. the ship sinking bodily." as if it was fact and since she supposedly said that it must be so. Then you act like your an expert on here because of your twenty years of "studying" titanic. Do you honestly think that if the prow could have resurfaced it would have been already proven by expert scientists. You exploit questionable testimony to fit your theory while ignoring the majority. Also, I do not see people necessarily agreeing with you, more so entertaining a far fetched idea. As far as Boxhall's description, all I see in his testimony was that the ship was settling by the head. He said that he witnessed the ship settling and when asked "She was settling by the head?" Boxhall responded "Yes she was settling by the head, My lord.". You are taking bit information and running with it, and you say there is nothing to disprove it, but there isn't much to support it without twisting words or ignoring majority descriptions. This isnt the first time I have noticed it as I have been on another titanic board you frequent
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,226
476
213
I've been studying the photos of the two pieces of double bottom. I happen to have stills, video, and artist renderings in my possession. They are also available online. These pieces tell many stories, but the one pertinent to this discussion is the rolled-over fore and aft edges of the pieces. Damage of this sort comes from failure under compression. In fact it's diagnostic of failure during compression.

However, the rolled edges do not mean the cause of the failure was compression. That's another discussion.

For Titanic's double bottom to have been in compression when the cracks which separated those pieces occurred requires that the hull was in a "hogged" condition. That is, the center was higher than the ends relative to the design waterline. This would have been the natural state of the hull while the sinking bow was trying to lift the stern clear of the water. The physical evidence negates a failure under tension -- the opposite condition known as "sagging." Those obviously rolled edges say that the center of the ship must have been hogged when Titanic's breakup began.

Lots more happened after the initial structural failure. But, any scenario which does not start out matching the physical evidence on the bottom can't be right. The iron doesn't lie.

-- David G. Brown
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
38
38
The above screenshot shows what Violet Jessop witnessed i.e. the ship sinking bodily. I am not "rudely ignoring the pieces of evidence". I don't know where you got that from? You can't dismiss what the survivors said happened. I have heard all kinds of theories over the years and half of them are still debatable to this day because we still can't prove or disprove a great deal. I have studied the Titanic for over 20 years. We know when 5 compartments were flooded the ship would tilt downwards to the point that water would spill onto E-deck and theoretically enter the next compartment assuming there was direct access. We have no evidence of water entering the next compartment from overheard into the next compartment, but we know the ship was listing gradually to port and it makes sense that the huge Scotland Road corridor was the direction in which the water travelled next, and therefore would spill down that corridor and into the middle of the ship. I have heard no evidence to dismiss that scenario. I asked if this added weight so close to the engines was enough to cause the ship to buckle. I have heard no arguments against it, on the contrary the other members have discussed that it was possible for the prow to resurface after it broke. The fact that the captain and the officers were heard ordering everyone to the starboard side with the desire to 'balance' the ship means the port list was their main concern and the fact that Boxhall said the stern was getting very low in the water means the ship had stopped sinking down by the head and was sinking bodily which strongly emphasises that water had spilled into the middle of the ship and she was buckling under the strain of that weight until she broke. I see no evidence whatever to disprove it, so it has to remain a possible scenario, among the many others.


.
"You can't dismiss what the survivors said happened."
At the same time you can't take questionable testimony or vague testimony and distort it in your favor. Also, I have seen Boxhall's testimony,
15460. Why was there suction at this time?
- The ship settling down badly, I suppose.

15461. Was it settling down rapidly. Could you see it settling down at this time?
- Yes, I could see her settling down; I was watching the lines of lights.

15462. (The Commissioner.) She was settling down by the head?
- She was settling down by the head, My Lord.
I do not know were how you came to the conclusion of the entire ship settling with the stern getting very low, so until I see those words it is not a fact. I also searched for Lady Duff Gordons take on the sinking and have yet to find anything that corroborates that description you supplied. Perhaps I am not looking in the right places. Even if she said it, people can be mistaken and when forensics tells us that it is unlikely if not impossible, I would be skeptical or there words.