Welome To The Titanic Tech Thread

Roy Mengot

Active Member
May 16, 2006
58
1
78
Greetings to all. I almost have this figured out.

I appreciate being asked to join the group. I've stayed away from the main boards because I didn't want to spend the time. Once you start with a thread, you have to stay with it. One list group I can manage.

On the hull break-up, I offered that theory based on work and research I did building the wreck model in 1997. What I do hope to do at the June MFP meeting is finally dispell the myth of the expansion joint.

Something else happened. Something more widespread and dynamic. My bottom-up theory may be closer to the truth, but I don't have the evidence to push it. The new bottom pieces will be good clues. I hope discussions in the next month can get people to take a much closer look at some of the larger 3-D wreckage sections in the debris field with an eye toward looking for specific damage patterns. Until the expansion joint thing goes away, nobody's been looking for that evidence that I know of.

Regards
Roy Mengot
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
372
283
Easley South Carolina
>>I appreciate being asked to join the group.<<

And I for one am damned glad to see you here.

>>On the hull break-up, I offered that theory based on work and research I did building the wreck model in 1997.<<

Which as far as I could see was the best possible explaination for the break up based on the available evidence. I was wondering if you had seen that History Channel presentation back in February and how it might effect the work you've done thus far. The sections of the wreck that were studied weren't news but the insights based on the analysis are, and for all I know, may serve to confirm some things you've suspected for years.
 

Roy Mengot

Active Member
May 16, 2006
58
1
78
One of the two sections has been seen before but wasn't really studied. Finding BOTH pieces and doing the analysis is a major coup in Titanic science and Discovery folks get full credit for the effort.

The results in the limited detail I've seen so far could be consistent with the break-up as I described it. I see no real contradictions. But the two pieces alone are not conclusive. There did not appear to be direct evidence of compression damage, but riveted structures like that are more likely to fail from compression stress than tension stress (according to a senior mechanical failure specialist on the MFP).

I want to look at the data, count the ribs, map the little bends in the plate edges to the fore and aft ends, and add it to the evidence bin. It is an important piece of evidence. But there's more to find.

I haven't renewed my THS subscription yet so I don't have what they've printed so far. I suspect I'll get copies of the report at the MFP meeting next month.

Regards
Roy Mengot
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
372
283
Easley South Carolina
>>But there's more to find. <<

I couldn't agree more. I'm looking forward to seeing your take on it when you've had a chance to go over everything. Obviously, I don't have the kind of access to detailed material like you do but what I saw pointed to a very clean break.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
My hope is that Roy can get 'detailed' access to the information from these expeditions. Roy's site was a direct result of his detailed study of Ballard's 1985 and 1986 footage.
 
Aug 10, 2002
266
1
148
Hello all:
I'm honored to be included in this group. I am currently engaged in research on Titanic's navigation, her flooding and a catalog of various publications and who said what where. In this catalog you enter with the subject and it will tell you where it is in print. Rather like the search engine on Titanic Inquires, but for publications that don't have them. I would suggest you might want to invite my colleague Cathy Akers-Jordan, she is doing research on the gates if you remember from the 2004 symposium.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
372
283
Easley South Carolina
>>I would suggest you might want to invite my colleague Cathy Akers-Jordan, she is doing research on the gates if you remember from the 2004 symposium. <<

Sounds like a good idea to me. (Dave, Erik, what say you?) Since the gang as it stands is all here, perhaps we can get the discussions going.
 

Roy Mengot

Active Member
May 16, 2006
58
1
78
>> Cathy Akers-Jordan, she is doing research on the gates if you remember from the 2004 symposium. <<

What is she researching about the gates? All of that is pretty well established.

Regards
Roy Mengot
 

Roy Mengot

Active Member
May 16, 2006
58
1
78
Ah, she did a very complete job. All of it matches my understanding of the subject. Well done.

Regards
Roy Mengot
 
Aug 10, 2002
266
1
148
I might add that Cathy has been my co-author on a number of articles on the research page and the transcript of the 1962 Boxhall interview.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
I am again late. Something I have been making a habit of lately.

I just got a note from Charlie and copied Mike and Dave on it. I have no problem adding Cathy to the group.
-------

So.... what are we talking about here.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
372
283
Easley South Carolina
>>So.... what are we talking about here.<<

That's what some of us were going to ask you and Dave about. I understand you had some things you wanted to discuss on the Q.T. persuant to your research, and this whole section was your idea. Were all ears and waiting with baited breath.

I'll see to adding Cathy to the group.
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
I am glad you asked. I am currently working on a long winded post. It's purpose is just to generate some thought. A lot of it is somewhat of rehash with some more percise information on research that I have done.

It's coming, but because of committments I have to others I have to word it....carefully.
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,215
464
213
I never really thought of Mike's breath as..well, ah.."baited."

The re-launching of this thread came just at a very busy time for me. I've not had the time available to prepare a proper post. However, I have some things in the works. Soon...

-- David G. Brown
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
372
283
Easley South Carolina
Dave, Erik, unless you feel the need, you don't really have to pen some sort of magnum opus for the opening rounds in this folder. Perhaps if you start out with your overall premise/proposal and then move on to individual posts to explain it.

Hell, we might even start out by discussing the data from the simulator runs at the MMA a couple of months ago that Dave ran and what they point to.
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,215
464
213
Mike-- I'm trying to drain the alligator, but the swamp's full of water. Neither Erik nor I plan a Magnum Opus, just a thoughtful start for a fruitful discussion.

My work is complicated by a new NDA which makes certain subjects difficult to discuss.

In the meantime, Sam and I are trying (between swamps) to define all of the various "times" associated with the Titanic saga. We found ourselves having difficulty with definitions as we tried to sort out times. We couldn't continue our now-famous argument because of a confusion over words. Look for something to come of this in a few weeks.

-- Dave
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
I just posted a rather lengthy post in the Collision thread. If you want a specific and none generic response pose the question here, not there as I will not discuss all of it in public.