Trapped air bubbles in sunken Titanic?
Norman Hom
This question doesn't have anything to do with anything but my curiosity.
Are there any pockets of air trapped in the wreckage of Titanic or would the
water pressure at that depth have crushed any compartments that still had
air in them? Just wondering.
TOM ELEVEN
The water pressure would have crushed any of the Titanic's hull plates like a
tin can if there were any air filled compartments behind them.
TOM
Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
tome...@aol.com
Doug Urquhart
Norman Hom wrote:
>
> This question doesn't have anything to do with anything but my curiosity.
> Are there any pockets of air trapped in the wreckage of Titanic or would the
> water pressure at that depth have crushed any compartments that still had
> air in them? Just wondering.
The pressure at Titanic's depth is around 2.5 tons per square inch,
(as opposed to 15 pounds at the surface).
Any fully-enclosed air-filled compartment would have been breached
on the way down.
If, however, a compartment were open to the sea at the bottom,
but sealed at the top (like an upturned bucket or a diving bell),
it would not be crushed. Instead, the air inside would be compressed
to the same pressure as the water outside.
Before we get all excited about finding tribes of lost passengers,
still trapped in an air pocket somewhere, let's consider the pressures
involved.
At 2.5 tons psi, about 360 times atmospheric pressure, the air in the
compartment would shrink to 1/360th of its original volume.
To make the calculations easier, consider a cube full of air, one meter
on each side.
At the surface, it contains 1 cubic meter of air
100 * 100 * 100 = 1,000,000 cubic centimeters of air
According to the Gas Law, volume of a gas is inversely proportional to
pressure,
so at Titanic's depth, the volume of the air would be reduced to
1,000,000 / 360 = 2778 cc.
Take 2778 cc of air and put it into a meter cube, and it occupies a
space
about .3 of a centimeter deep.
You can scale this up for really big cubes, like the engine room or
whatever,
but we are really talking about a fairly thin skin of air.
Not normal air, by the way, but very very high pressure air. Humans
could not
survive in this environment, and I'm not even sure anything organic
(e.g. books)
could. I'm not an expert in such things, but I believe the oxygen
content
tends to get a bit enthusiastic at high pressures. Anyone help me here?
--
Regards
Doug Urquhart
<email address mis-spelled to avoid spam>
John Canning
TOM ELEVEN wrote in message
<199806111320...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>This question doesn't have anything to do with anything but my curiosity.
>>Are there any pockets of air trapped in the wreckage of Titanic or would
the
>>water pressure at that depth have crushed any compartments that still had
>>air in them? Just wondering.
>>
>>
>
>The water pressure would have crushed any of the Titanic's hull plates like
a
>tin can if there were any air filled compartments behind them.
>TOM
>Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Granted no airtight compartment would survive, but what about a compartment
that was open on the bottom. This would allow the pressure to equalize,
while preventing the air from escapeing. So airpockets should be possible.
John Canning
Chris Nyborg
John Canning wrote<6lot2u$5i3$1...@news.fsr.net>...
[snip]
>Granted no airtight compartment would survive, but what about a compartment
>that was open on the bottom. This would allow the pressure to equalize,
>while preventing the air from escapeing. So airpockets should be possible.
>
>John Canning
This really isn't my field, but from experiences in the kitchen sink, I
would believe that the compartments must have been completely stable on
their way down - if you lower a glass in water, the air will compress (very
slightly in a sink, of course, giving the same pressure on both side, but if
you tilt it just a little bit to the side, the balance is lost. Given that
the wreck sank at high speed while spinning, and changed its angle from the
time when it sank to when it hit the ocean floor, I would think that it is
impossible for such air pockets to exist.
Chris Nyborg
cny...@online.no
John Canning
Chris Nyborg wrote in message <6lou1f$hoh$1...@o.online.no>...
>This really isn't my field, but from experiences in the kitchen sink, I
>would believe that the compartments must have been completely stable on
>their way down - if you lower a glass in water, the air will compress (very
>slightly in a sink, of course, giving the same pressure on both side, but
if
>you tilt it just a little bit to the side, the balance is lost. Given that
>the wreck sank at high speed while spinning, and changed its angle from the
>time when it sank to when it hit the ocean floor, I would think that it is
>impossible for such air pockets to exist.
>
I was thinking more in terms of air pockets being formed by air that was
unable to find a path out of the wreck. I find it unlikely that 100% of
the air was forced out of the wreckage. But by the same token, any
airpockets would likely be very small due to the high pressure, and as you
pointed out the turbulent descent to the bottom.
John Canning
Gary Schuyler
Norman Hom wrote:
>
> This question doesn't have anything to do with anything but my curiosity.
> Are there any pockets of air trapped in the wreckage of Titanic or would the
> water pressure at that depth have crushed any compartments that still had
> air in them? Just wondering.
Even if there had been trapped air in Titanic, it wouldn't last very
long. Even in an undisturbed inverted container, I'm sure the gas would
diffuse into the water and be long gone.
Joe Knapp
Doug Urquhart wrote in message <357FDC...@localnet.com>...
>I believe the oxygen content
>tends to get a bit enthusiastic at high pressures. Anyone help me here?
Scuba divers know "Martini's law" which is that each 30
feet or so you go down is like having one martini, in terms of
disorientation and confusion. There's another point at
which oxygen becomes outright poisonous--300 feet if
you're breathing air. At that point you'd feel like you had
10 martinis, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad. The air
would be noticably thick as you're breathing it in, too.
Joe
Tom Pappas
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
TOM ELEVEN <tome...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806111320...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >This question doesn't have anything to do with anything but my
curiosity.
> >Are there any pockets of air trapped in the wreckage of Titanic or would
the
> >water pressure at that depth have crushed any compartments that still
had
> >air in them? Just wondering.
> >
> >
>
> The water pressure would have crushed any of the Titanic's hull plates
like a
> tin can if there were any air filled compartments behind them.
...which is exactly what appears to have happened to the stern section. It
sank with air pockets in it, and the pressure smashed it flat. (Although
why the stern was any more likely than the bow section to sink with air
still in it is something I have never been able to fathom.)
> TOM
> Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> tome...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Umm, where did you get your divers certification?
Joe Knapp wrote:
> Scuba divers know "Martini's law" which is that each 30
> feet or so you go down is like having one martini, in terms of
> disorientation and confusion. There's another point at
> which oxygen becomes outright poisonous-
I have read about exotic gas mixes for deep diving, but I never heard of
one where they left out the oxygen. Poisonous? Hogwash!
Perhaps chemistry, like math and semantics, is a subject you should
leave for others, Mr. Knapp.
-Doug King
Doug Urquhart
My apologies, it wasn't my intent to start a flame war about Scuba
diving..
I'm talking about pressures very much higher than humans can tolerate
(even dead).
I seem to remember reading that the oxygen component of air becomes
very active at extremely high pressures, causing anything around to
be oxidised - a kind of cold burning.
Trouble is - I can't find the reference.
Joe Knapp
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote in message <35811C...@acpub.duke.edu>...
>Umm, where did you get your divers certification?
>
>Joe Knapp wrote:
>> Scuba divers know "Martini's law" which is that each 30
>> feet or so you go down is like having one martini, in terms of
>> disorientation and confusion. There's another point at
>> which oxygen becomes outright poisonous---300 feet if
>> you're breathing air.
>
>I have read about exotic gas mixes for deep diving, but I never heard of
>one where they left out the oxygen. Poisonous? Hogwash!
There's one problem with this reasoning: there's the real world,
and then there's what you have heard of. The latter is purely
abstract and has no bearing on the real world. It is certainly
no basis for an uninformed flame.
Any tyro scuba diver knows (or should know) about oxygen
poisoning. My information comes from memory, from the book
"The New Science of Skin and Scuba Diving." But a quick
search of the net yields a paper by NOAA (that's the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) on
"Oxygen Poisoning." You might want to read it.
http://www.uwsports.com/reference_library/noaa/section_03/subsection_03.html
Here's another one, from a good beginning scuba diving book
you might want to check out, titled "Scuba Diving Explained":
http://www.mtsinai.org/pulmonary/books/scuba/gaspress.htm
here's an excerpt:
<begin quote>
OXYGEN TOXICITY
Pulmonary effects (can occur at atmospheric pressure; threshold about 0.6
atm. O2)
burning sensation on taking a deep breath
cough
pneumonia
permanent lung damage
Central nervous system effects (requires pressures above atmospheric;
threshold about 1.3 atm. O2)
muscular twitching
vomiting
dizziness
vision or hearing abnormalities
anxiety, confusion, irritability
seizures
<end quote>
>Perhaps chemistry, like math and semantics, is a subject you should
>leave for others, Mr. Knapp.
Perhaps you'd like to come up with effectual arguments,
rather than pathetic whiffs? If you'd like to argue either
math or semantics, be specific, if you have the
equipment. Chemistry (or rather physiology) is fair
game too, although I don't think I've broached the
subject very much if at all.
Joe
Ian Maione
In article <01bd9540$fcd98000$0100000a@www>,
Tom Pappas <thepapp...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
>...which is exactly what appears to have happened to the stern section. It
>sank with air pockets in it, and the pressure smashed it flat. (Although
>why the stern was any more likely than the bow section to sink with air
>still in it is something I have never been able to fathom.)
>
Perhaps this is too obvious an answer, but it seems to me this is
pretty simple. The bow sections were the ones breached by the berg, and
were filling for 2 1/2 hours before the ship broke up and went under
(remember the hissing noise heard as the air was forced out of the
forepeak tank only a few minutes after collision?). Relatively speaking,
there would have been much less flooding in the stern sections, even
at the very end, and there would have been a lot of compartments still
full of air. In the forward bow sections, by contrast, all the air
would have been forced out, and completely filled.
Regards,
Ian
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Joe Knapp wrote:
> Perhaps you'd like to come up with effectual arguments,
> rather than pathetic whiffs? If you'd like to argue either
> math or semantics, be specific, if you have the
> equipment. Chemistry (or rather physiology) is fair
> game too, although I don't think I've broached the
> subject very much if at all.
No, you haven't. And you haven't read (or perhaps comprehension is the
real problem) the very sources you are quoting. Here are the FIRST TWO
sentences of the NOAA article:
"Prolonged exposure to higher than normal oxygen partial pressures
causes a variety of toxic effects whose manifestations are referred to
collectively as oxygen poisoning. It is now believed most likely that
oxygen poisoning is initiated by increased rates of formation of
superoxide, peroxide, and other oxidizing free radicals that ultimately
cause critical enzyme inactiva-tion, lipid peroxidation, and impairment
of cell mem- brane function, with resultant disruption of intracellular
metabolism."
In other words, oxygen is not poisonous.
The human lungs are design to work (ie to bind monatomic oxygen to red
blood cells) within a given range of pressures and concentrations. If
you go too high or too low, bad things start to happen.
This is explained to simpleminded souls who aren't interested in the
details (and who don't have the background knowledge of basic science to
understand it) as "oxygen poisoning."
To restate my point: Mr. Knapp, your newsgroup posts involving math or
chemistry are childishly inaccurate; and your grip of semantics is very
weak. Work on your attention span and your reading comprehension skills
first, the rest will follow.
-Doug King
Joe Knapp
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote in message <35852E...@acpub.duke.edu>...
>"Prolonged exposure to higher than normal oxygen partial pressures
>causes a variety of toxic effects whose manifestations are referred to
>collectively as oxygen poisoning. It is now believed most likely that
>oxygen poisoning is initiated by increased rates of formation of
>superoxide, peroxide, and other oxidizing free radicals that ultimately
>cause critical enzyme inactiva-tion, lipid peroxidation, and impairment
>of cell mem- brane function, with resultant disruption of intracellular
>metabolism."
>
>In other words, oxygen is not poisonous.
I believe you are what's known as a "weirdo."
Joe
Bob Botts
In article <01bd98c3$d90e9c60$50e390d1@default> "BugSquatslow" <Mas...@pdq.net> writes:
>Isn't air Poisonous? Isn't that called Narcosis? or is that something else
>to do with diving at those depths?
>Regards,
>BugSquatslow
>--
>" Pay phone, something wrong, dime gone, will mill,
>ought to sue the operator for tellin' me a tale..ahh.." -Chuck Berry, Too
>Much Monkey Business.
>
Technically, probably not, but entry level SCUBA courses target the
lowest common denominator, so, it's no surprise that O2 toxicity often is
referred to, as 'oxygen poisoning'.
The narcotic effect of breathing compressed air at depth, is due to the
elevated partial pressure of nitrogen, (one of the constituent components of
normal air).
Cheers...Bob
Joe Knapp
Bob Botts wrote in message ...
>Technically, probably not, but entry level SCUBA courses target the
>lowest common denominator, so, it's no surprise that O2 toxicity often is
>referred to, as 'oxygen poisoning'.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between a toxin
and a poison, hotshot.
And maybe also why NOAA calls it "oxygen poisoning."
<quote on>
Prolonged exposure to higher than normal oxygen partial pressures causes a
variety of toxic effects whose manifestations are referred to collectively
as oxygen poisoning. It is now believed most likely that oxygen poisoning is
initiated by increased rates of formation of superoxide, peroxide, and other
oxidizing free radicals that ultimately cause critical enzyme inactiva-tion,
lipid peroxidation, and impairment of cell mem- brane function, with
resultant disruption of intracellular metabolism. These adverse effects of
oxidant species are opposed by anti-oxidant protective mechanisms until the
defenses are overwhelmed by the magnitude and duration of oxidant stress.
Thus, the onset time, nature, and severity of overt manifestations of oxygen
toxicity are determined by the inspired oxygen pressure and duration of
exposure, as well as by unique characteristics of enzyme function and
external manifestations of specific disruptions of intracellular metabolism.
Since oxygen toxicity is a generalized phenomenon that affects all living
cells, its adverse effects are ultimately expressed in all organ systems and
functions (Lambertsen 1978).
http://www.uwsports.com/reference_library/noaa/section_03/subsection_03.html
<quote off>
Oh yeah, they're appealing to the lowest classes--I mean
common denominator, that's it.
It must be hard to be so brilliant, especially about
phenomena one first heard about yesterday.
Joe
Joe Knapp
BugSquatslow wrote in message <01bd98c3$d90e9c60$50e390d1@default>...
>Isn't air Poisonous? Isn't that called Narcosis? or is that something else
>to do with diving at those depths?
The phenomenon is "nitrogen narcosis" and means that the air
acts as a narcotic as a function of pressure. It does not
refer to poisonous properties in this case, although the
result (like forgetting the necessity of your regulator) may
be fatal.
Jacques Cousteau described it well:
I am personally quite receptive to nitrogen rapture. I like it and fear
it like doom. It destroys the instinct of life. Tough individuals are
not
overcome as soon as neurasthenic persons like me, but they have
difficulty extricating themselves. Intellectuals get drunk early and
suffer
acute attacks on all the senses, which demand hard fighting to
overcome. When they have beaten the foe, they recover quickly. The
agreeable glow of depth rapture resembles the giggle-party jags of the
nineteen-twenties when flappers and sheiks convened to sniff nitrogen
protoxide.
L'ivresse des grandes profoundeurs has one salient advantage over
alcohol no hangover. If one is able to escape from its zone, the brain
clears instantly and there are no horrors in the morning. I cannot read
accounts of a record dive without wanting to ask the champion how
drunk he was.
Lawrence Martin describes it thus:
Nitrogen narcosis is a highly variable sensation but
always depth-related. Some divers experience no
narcotic effect at depths up to 130 fsw, whereas others
feel some effect at around 80 fsw. One thing is certain:
once begun, the narcotic effect increases with increasing
depth. Each additional 50 feet depth is said to feel like
having another martini. The diver may feel and act totally
drunk. Underwater, of course, this sensation can be deadly.
Divers suffering nitrogen narcosis have been observed
taking the regulator out of their mouth and handing it to a fish!
Joe
Polar Bear
Tom Pappas <thepapp...@mci2000.com> wrote:
: ...which is exactly what appears to have happened to the stern section. It
: sank with air pockets in it, and the pressure smashed it flat. (Although
: why the stern was any more likely than the bow section to sink with air
: still in it is something I have never been able to fathom.)
Apparently it's because the bow section had a leisurely 2 hours 40 minutes
to get completely flooded, whereas the stern section went down too quickly
on its final death plunge for it to be fully flooded before it was
crushed.
Bob Ballard seemed to have thought (at least from what I gathered from TNLO)
that the compressed stern decks was caused by the impact with the bottom, which
isn't logical of course since the bow section hit with similiar impact
and is still in relatively good condition.
--
SUPPORT COMPETITION, FREE MARKETS AND INNOVATION! BOYCOTT MICROSOFT!!
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
GCS d-- H s+:+ !g p? au- a- w+ !v C--- US+ P? N++ W++ V-- po+++ !5--
tv-- D+ B--- e+ u++ h! f++ r+ n--- x?
Joe Knapp
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote in message <358665...@acpub.duke.edu>...
>> And maybe also why NOAA calls it "oxygen poisoning."
>
>Gosh! If oxygen is poisonous, why doesn't it have a warning label?
Gosh gee willikers. Have you finished whiffing yet?
I can assure you that the poisonous effects of high pressure
oxygen, in addition to be listed by the NOAA paper titled
"Oxygen Poisoning," and known to any tyro scuba diver,
are relflected in the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet)
for oxygen. You are rude an totally off base. When
you can rationally discuss a subject, please do so.
=========================================
Health Hazard Data
=========================================
LD50-LC50 Mixture: LD50 (ORAL RAT) IS NOT APPLICABLE.
Route Of Entry - Inhalation: YES Route Of Entry - Skin: NO
Route Of Entry - Ingestion: NO
Health Haz Acute And Chronic: EXTENDED EXPOSURES
TO OXYGEN AT HIGHER PRESSURES MAY BE
HAZARDOUS. A VARIETY OF CENTRAL NERVOUS
SYSTEM EFFECTS MAY RESULT FROM BREATHING
OXYGEN GREATER THAN 2 ATM., CONTACT WITH LIQUID
OXYGEN CAN CAUSE SEVERE FROSTBITE/FREEZE
BURNS. CHRONIC: PROLONGED BREATHING OF VERY
COLD ATMOSPHERES CAN CAUSE LUNG DAMAGE.
Carcinogenicity - NTP: NO Carcinogenicity - IARC: NO
Carcinogenicity - OSHA: NO
Explanation Carcinogenicity: OXYGEN IS NOT LISTED
BY IARC, NTP, OR OSHA AS A CARCINOGEN.
Signs/Symptoms Of Overexp: BREATHING OXYGEN
GREATER THAN 2 ATM. MAY RESULT
IN DIZZINESS, IMPAIRED COORDINATION, VISUAL
AND HEARING DISTURANCES, AND
SEIZURES. PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO COLD
AREAS CAN RESULT IN HYPOTHERMIA.
Med Cond Aggravated By Exp: NONE
Emergency/First Aid Proc: REMOVE TO FRESH AIR. IF IN CONTACT WITH LIQUID,
REMOVE VICTIM FROM SOURCE OF CONTACT. FLUSH AFFECTED AREA WITH LOTS OF
TEPID WATER. DO NOT APPLY DIRECT HEAT. DO NOT RUB FROZEN AREA.
>You are on the same level of technical comprehension as those people who
>believe oxygen is flammable.
Do not apply direct heat to or rub the frozen area between your
ears.
Joe
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Joe Knapp wrote:
> I can assure you that the poisonous effects of high pressure
> oxygen, in addition to be listed by the NOAA paper titled
> "Oxygen Poisoning," and known to any tyro scuba diver,
> are relflected in the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet)
> for oxygen.
(MSDS info and childish insult snipped)
Now you're getting an actual glimmering of the truth.
"Poisonous effects" is not the same thing as "poisonous."
BTW, perhaps now that you admit you're just a tyro scuba diver, you
might realize that you ought not be pontificating to people who have not
only *written* MSDS, but also contributed to Mil-Spec, ISO 4100, and
NBST procedures. This newsgroup has many contributors who are experts in
many fields!
In another thread, Joe Knapp wrote:
> I wonder if there was even a way to convey such an
> order to the engine room. Maybe the telegraph
> wasn't set up to give separate orders for each
> engine. There might have been serious vibrations
> too. My 2c.
You are totally ignorant about shipboard engineering, also. Just about
any actual book (perhaps one of those suitable for the tyro reader)
about the Titanic will discuss the engine order telegraph, and most will
even have a picture of the bridge with the multiple EOTs.
Mr. Knapp, if you're here to learn, try posting less and reading more.
If you're just here to flap your yap, tell us all now so we can killfile
you.
-Doug King
Joe Knapp
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote in message <3587DA...@acpub.duke.edu>...
>Joe Knapp wrote:
>(MSDS info and childish insult snipped)
I believe I said you are rude and totally off base.
This is borne out in the quoted message. Again,
will you continue pathetic whiffs, or discuss
something substantive? Or at least reveal what's
really eating you. Perhaps it's the bonfire of
certain vanities around here. Apparently
you are unable to focus in on any substantive
criticism though.
>Now you're getting an actual glimmering of the truth.
>
>"Poisonous effects" is not the same thing as "poisonous."
Semantic claptrap. See NOAA report on "Oxygen Poisoning"
for details.
>BTW, perhaps now that you admit you're just a tyro scuba diver,
I don't think I've engaged in any chest beating about
what "I" am. I have related facts. You seem to prefer
the former course.
I think, in starting this baseless tirade, you admitted you
had never heard of oxygen poisoning, and said "where did
you get your scuba certification?" I have straightened you
out that any tyro scuba diver will know this. Now your tack
is to belittle scuba divers, lacking your great talent at
semantic obfuscation.
>might realize that you ought not be pontificating to people who have not
>only *written* MSDS, but also contributed to Mil-Spec, ISO 4100, and
>NBST procedures.
Here we have more chest-beating. You adopted your
"gosh gee" routine in asking why these well-known
effects aren't on oxygen's "warning label." They are.
I simply quote the MSDS and that sends you on
another tantrum. You again are totally off base.
It makes no difference what you have done.
What is eating you? Be specific.
>This newsgroup has many contributors who are experts in
>many fields!
Umm, that would include you perhaps? Oh
you are so impressive.
>In another thread, Joe Knapp wrote:
>> I wonder if there was even a way to convey such an
>> order to the engine room. Maybe the telegraph
>> wasn't set up to give separate orders for each
>> engine. There might have been serious vibrations
>> too. My 2c.
>
>You are totally ignorant about shipboard engineering, also. Just about
>any actual book (perhaps one of those suitable for the tyro reader)
>about the Titanic will discuss the engine order telegraph, and most will
>even have a picture of the bridge with the multiple EOTs.
Just asking. Sorry if that sends your glands in
overdrive as well.
>Mr. Knapp, if you're here to learn, try posting less and reading more.
>If you're just here to flap your yap, tell us all now so we can killfile
>you.
We? Delusions of leading a movement.
Joe
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Joe Knapp wrote:
> .....you admitted you
> had never heard of oxygen poisoning,
Please point out where I "admitted" this. It's quite untrue. I have read
about the effects of high-pressure oxygen for years. Anyone who works
with hyperbaric equipment, or in calibration labs, or for that matter a
welder, will have this knowledge.
In other words, you're wrong several times over. Oxygen does not "become
poisonous" at high pressure, and most of the other things you have been
posting to this newsgroup are pure horse-hockey (such as the lack of
communications between the engineroom and bridge, and the seperation of
classes). You may continue if you like, since it's a free country.
End of discussion, this has little Titanic-related content.....
Tom Pappas
Oh, come on! I was hoping you could get him to call you "stupid."
--
---
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
http://home.mci2000.com/~ThePapp...@mci2000.com
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote in message <358913...@acpub.duke.edu>...
Joe Knapp
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote in message <358913...@acpub.duke.edu>...
>> .....you admitted you
>> had never heard of oxygen poisoning,
>
>Please point out where I "admitted" this. It's quite untrue.
I simply made an indisputable statement, known to anyone
who's taken a scuba class, or read the MSDS for oxgen:
There's another point at which oxygen becomes outright
poisonous-
You replied:
...oxygen. Poisonous? Hogwash!
If you had heard of it, perhaps you were just playing dumb
for the purposes of a ridiculous flame? You tell me.
>In other words, you're wrong several times over. Oxygen does not "become
>poisonous" at high pressure,
You're an idiot. And rude.
I think it's time you stated what's really
eating you, rather than this pathetic semantic exercise.
See the NOAA paper on "Oxygen Poisoning."
>and most of the other things you have been
>posting to this newsgroup are pure horse-hockey (such as the lack of
>communications between the engineroom and bridge, and the seperation of
>classes).
I believe the correct maneuver at this point is to put
your finger into your ears and repeat "Lies, lies, it's
all lies." Over and over. That way you don't have
to come up with anything specific to argue. I
believe I have sourced my claims here adequately.
You may not like them. You may not want to
believe them. But what goes on in your head
is independent of how the world really operates.
>End of discussion, this has little Titanic-related content.....
Go along now...
Joe
Joe Knapp
Tom Pappas wrote in message ...
>Oh, come on! I was hoping you could get him to call you "stupid."
I see you admire his behavior of playing dumb and using
semantic diversions to avoid getting to the heart of a
matter.
I happened to receive the entire RINA paper in the
mail last week. Your wacky theory that a head-on collision
would have been worse is not only contradicted by
Edward Wilding, the Harland and Wolff architect, but
it's also contradicted by the modern analysis of the
Royal Institute of Naval Architects. Yet you have the
nerve to tag any alternative view a "dead horse." Tom
Pappas has solved it beyond dispute. Just don't look
up the view of any expert. When challenged, sidetrack
the discussion into pointless side issues.
For parties interested in the truth, rather than egocentric
flights of fancy, here is the gist of it:
Wilding calculated that if the Titanic hit the iceberg
head-on, about 80-100 feet of the bow would be
crushed in, but the ship would have remained
afloat. RINA analysts AGREE with this estimate
and conlcusion: "...survival in the case of a
head-on collsion seems almost certain. We can be
sure that, at the least, she would have floated
much longer..." Wilding's calculations do not need
to be "redone." They were in fact redone by
RINA, who agreed with this estimate.
In Pappas' world, on the other hand, where
credulity feeds on itself in a galloping pace,
the ship would have sunk "without so much
as a CQD." If anyone discusses the
generally accepted view, they are riding
a "dead horse." Just check his web page.
The resulting deceleration would have been
felt by the passengers, according to Wilding,
as a "pressure" but not a "sharp blow."
Lord Mersey speculated that the people
would have been shot out of their bunks, but
Wilding patiently explained that a car going
from 22 mph to 0 in 100 feet would not
shoot you out the front.
The deceleration would be quite mild.
A quick calc: if the ship goes from the
speed of the Titanic, 11.3 m/sec, to
zero in 100 feet (30 meters) in a
straight-line deceleration, it will take
about 5.3 seconds to do so. That's
an average deceleration of 2.1 m/sec^2
or about 0.22 G. No big deal for the
vast majority of the ship and its
occupants--human, or machine.
Greater accelerations can be had
in most cars, even in the forward
direction.
I think the case was closed
on this one long ago, by
Mr. Wilding.
Joe
Butler1918
>Oh, come on! I was hoping you could get him to call you "stupid."
>
>
Damn! So was I!
Don't you just love it Tom, when people as disparate as you, Eric Payne, Doug
King, and myself--and people like you and me who have violently disagreed in
the past--have all come to a consensus about Joe Knapp, and promptly get lumped
together into the group who stops up our ears and repeats "Lies! Lies!
They're all lies!" over and over again?
My God, how could I have been so blind? Despite the all the degrees between
the four of us (at least half a dozen that I know of) as well as myriad
certifications and specialized schools, we're all out of step except Joey!
I wonder if he would tell us what it feels like to be a legend in his own mind?
Sincerely
Daniel Allen Butler
Joe Knapp
Butler1918 wrote in message
<199806192142...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>My God, how could I have been so blind? Despite the all the degrees
between
>the four of us (at least half a dozen that I know of) as well as myriad
>certifications and specialized schools...
Chest-beating as a substitute for defending your specious
arguments.
Joe