IF they opened all the Watertight doors
medge...@webtv.net
I think if The Captain of the Titanic had opened up all the Wartertight
Compartments then the ship would have filled up and sank at an even pace
unstead of tipping over .It would have taken 8 or more hrs to sink if
they had done this .The Carpathia would have gotten to the rescue just
in time to save every one on the ship .Does any one think this could
have been done .
Derek
medge...@webtv.net wrote:
What I wonder about is IF it would have taken longer. I don't think so.
Could have capsized (would have meant NO survivors), or gone down even
faster. How do you figure it would have taken almost 3 times longer?
--
Derek O'Banion
email: doba...@ups.edu
University of Puget Sound
http://asups.ups.edu/~dobanion
Computer Science, Webpage Designer
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Derek (doba...@ups.edu) wrote:
: medge...@webtv.net wrote:
: > I think if The Captain of the Titanic had opened up all the Wartertight
: > Compartments then the ship would have filled up and sank at an even pace
: > unstead of tipping over .It would have taken 8 or more hrs to sink if
: > they had done this .The Carpathia would have gotten to the rescue just
: > in time to save every one on the ship .Does any one think this could
: > have been done .
: What I wonder about is IF it would have taken longer. I don't think so.
: Could have capsized (would have meant NO survivors), or gone down even
: faster. How do you figure it would have taken almost 3 times longer?
I am not about to do a detailed anaylis on the subject, buit I feel that
if all the watertight doors were left open, the ship would have definitely
stayed afloat longer. Here are my reasons. Again, I don't have a machinery
arrangement drawing n front of me, but I'll try to do the best I can with
my knowledge of ships.
First we assume that each of the watertight compartments had a dedicated
bilge pump. If that is the case, and each door was left open, that leave
almost twice as many pumps avavilable to help combat the flooding. The
rate of flooding would still have been the same initally if the the
doors were opened or closed, and I think that if the doors were left open,
the puympsd could have stalled for some time.
Second, the ship would not have gone down by the bow. THe ship would have
lasted much longer if the bow hadn't been submerged. It would have
sunk steadily until the water finally poured over the wether deck and into
the ship. The would have bought some time, also.
However, I do not know how they could have kept the power plant up and
running once the boiler rooms were flooded. I take it that they would
have some type of emergency generator or UPS for the wireless, but I
doubt that this was practice in the early 1900's.
So, IMHO, I feel the Titanic could have been made to sink slower if the
watertight doors were left open, INHO. Any other thoughts?
-Doug
--
"The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods
to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!" - Grandpa Simpson
LETS GO METS!!! GO RANGERS!!!!
Elsa22
I recently read somewhere that the reason they couldn't let the ship fill up
with water evenly was the electric generators would go out and then they
couldn't use the wireless....I guess this means there were no emergency
generators at the time.
tom brennan
One reason the ship sank faster going down by the head is that as the
bow went down new areas (anchor chain openings and cargo holds) became
exposed to flooding. The anchor openings probably doubled the amount of
area open to the sea.
Tom Brennan
Areff D
I posted this somewhere else, but not under this heading. I read somewhere
that, at that time, the idea of a captain deliberately letting MORE water into
a sinking ship was something they simply never would have thought of -- not an
error on their part, it was simply something that would never have occured to
them.
Richard F. Dickson
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
CyberStage
that is actually a very interesting point, come to think of it. But i am sure
if it were possible, Thomas Andrews would have thought of it. Or at least the
Chief Engineer. Perhaps it could have, perhaps in another life.
Vinny
Cyber...@aol.com
"Think of the shame of it, that a mass of ice of no use to any one or anything
should have the power fatally to injure the beautiful Titanic!" Lawrence
Beesley, Second Class Passenger
William Daystrom
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
>
>However, I do not know how they could have kept the power plant up and
>running once the boiler rooms were flooded. I take it that they would
>have some type of emergency generator or UPS for the wireless, but I
>doubt that this was practice in the early 1900's.
>
>So, IMHO, I feel the Titanic could have been made to sink slower if the
>watertight doors were left open, INHO. Any other thoughts?
I was surprised that in Cameron's Titanic movie Captain Smith actually asks
Andrews if opening the doors would help, to which Andrews replies it would
only buy a little time. I'm not aware of any testimony that supports the
conversation ever taking place, but the fact that Cameron thought to have
them talk it over is interesting.
Back to your point about opening the doors. They could have opened the
doors from the bridge, but would that have kept the doors from re-closing
when water reached the floats of each door? You would think there would be
a way of forcing the doors to stay open, but I don't know enough about
Titanic's doors to say.
I agree that power could not have been maintained for long in a flooding
engine room -- generators don't seem to like water. That would make for a
very dark ship on a very dark night -- not a good thing (imagine being below
decks when the lights go out!).
Here's a couple of thoughts on a similar line: it is believed by many that
the gradually disappearing lights of the Titanic (as she sank) indicated to
the Californian's officers that the ship was sailing away, not sinking. If
the lights suddenly went out, say, very soon after the collision, would they
have acted differently? How about repeatedly turning the lights on and off,
like a gigantic morse code signal? The Californian couldn't mistake *that*.
Well, given their actions that night, I suppose they could.
--William
Andrew and Rebecca Hall
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
> So, IMHO, I feel the Titanic could have been made to sink slower if the
> watertight doors were left open, INHO. Any other thoughts?
I'm not qualified to address this one myself, but Roy Mengot, an engineer and
modeler who did research on the wreck at Woods Hole, and who was a featured
speaker at the 1997 THS meeting aboard Queen Mary at Long Beach, has some
thoughts on it:
http://www.flash.net/~rfm/WHYWHAT/whywhat.html
He also has, in his sections of the sinking and breakup of the ship, excerpts
from the a study published by the Royal Institute of Naval Architects.
Be sure to explore the rest of his website -- I've never seen a model like
his reconstruction of the wreck. Superb!
------------> Andy Hall
Chris Story
I have read this theory before however, when the ship hit the iceberg it
didn't rip the side open as once was believed it gouged the side enough
to flood more than six compartments the ship was doomed from that
moment. As far as stretching out the time of the inevitable I
personally believe it might have caused the ship to sink faster and I'll
tell you why. It could have caused the boilers to explode by flooding
them all at once resulting in the ship breaking apart. If you lood at a
diagram of the ship the boilers take up the majority of the hold area of
the Titanic if one boiler had exploded the chain reaction from the coal
dust ignition would have most likely blown the ship to bits. Also I
believe that the designer Mr. Andrews and Capt. Smith would have used
this option if they thought it would buy them some time. We are talking
about their lives too. Lastly, I may be wrong and feel free to correct
me but I believe those doors could be closed mechanically but were
opened manually.
fwtep
tu...@pcisys.net wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998 19:54:21 -0800, "William Daystrom"
> <dec...@blader.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I was surprised that in Cameron's Titanic movie Captain Smith actually asks
> >Andrews if opening the doors would help, to which Andrews replies it would
> >only buy a little time. I'm not aware of any testimony that supports the
> >conversation ever taking place, but the fact that Cameron thought to have
> >them talk it over is interesting.
> >
>
> He did not mention the doors. The captain did mention the doors
> immediately after entering the bridge after they had struck the
> iceberg. He toldl Mr. Murdoch to close them and Mr. Murdoch said that
> he had already done so.
>
> Turin
I just saw the movie again last night and the Smith DOES mention opening
the doors in regard to using the pumps. It's just that he doesn't call
much attention to it; it's not like he says "hey, here's an idea! How
about..."
--
-=Fred=-
http://www.planetxstudios.com
-.-. --.- -.. -- --. -.--
tu...@pcisys.net
DigitalPink
But I distinctly recall someone (Lightoller poerhaps?...one of the
officers in the background) saying "If we were to open..."...then the
dialogue steps on the end of the actor's line, so I'm left wondering
what he was going to say... perhaps..."open the watertight doors?"...
Anyone else catch this? It comes right after Andrews says pumps will
buy minutes only...
navboy
Was curious to know if anyone had viewed this document; i found it last
night after seeing the movie while looking for feedback on the
port/starboard thingie .... http://www.freep.com/fun/movies/qsink19.htm ...
(if anyone knows how to paste the actual hyperlink into a response please
let me know; i'm using Internet Explorer) ...
it offers some ironic tidbits about [supposedly] reallife things vs the
movie, many of which have been discussed in this NG the past couple days it
sounds like ... here's the gist of it:
----------------------------------
• The Royal Mail Steamer Titanic -- its official moniker -- cost $7.5
million to build in 1912 (about $122 million in 1997 dollars). Director
James Cameron's movie "Titanic" cost more than $200 million to make, the
biggest budget in Hollywood history.
• The Titanic took two hours, 40 minutes to sink. The movie lasts three
hours, 24 minutes.
• One of the last surviving Titanic passengers was Michigander George
Thomas, a resident of Burton, who died in December 1991. He was a
7-year-old boy, traveling with his mother and sister, when the ship sank.
He never tired of telling how he clung to the railing as he climbed from
deep within the ship to the main deck, where he was put into the
next-to-last lifeboat with his family.
• Remember the 1960 movie "The Unsinkable Molly Brown," in which Debbie
Reynolds portrays a heroine on the Titanic? There really was a Molly Brown,
who became a heroine after the sinking due to her alleged threatening of
the crew (in some versions, with a pistol) and putting all the women on
board in charge of the oars.
• White Star Line chairman J. Bruce Ismay -- a first-class passenger on the
Titanic -- has gone down in history as a coward. Ismay conveniently managed
to save himself by plopping into a seat on a lifeboat while hundreds of
others (including nearly 50 infants and children in third class who
ultimately drowned) were forced to wait. Ismay was ostracized by the world
and reportedly lived out his life as a hermit.
• In the days following the collision, a young telegraph enthusiast set up
shop in the window of a major New York City department store, where people
could watch him send and get messages. The young man was David Sarnoff, and
he went on to create the National Broadcasting Co. (NBC).
• The last song the ship's stalwart band played as the water rose has
always been thought to be "Nearer My God to Thee" (that's what the band
plays in the new movie.) But reports by some survivors say otherwise.
Walter Lord, author of 1955's nonfiction "A Night to Remember" (the Titanic
bible), believes, as do many others, that the last song was "Autumn."
• There is a love story in the movie between stars Leonardo DiCaprio and
Kate Winslet. But there was a real love story during the sinking. Ida
Straus, wife of the retired owner of Macy's department store, chose to die
with her husband rather than be rescued without him.
• Titanic Historical Society member Darwin Rizzetto did a few calculations
and, according to Steven Biel's new book "Down with the Old Canoe,"
determined that six rafts could have been made out of the Titanic's 3,600
life jackets and could have saved everyone on board had the passengers been
loaded onto them.
• Fourteen years before the Titanic set sail, a novice writer named Morgan
Robertson wrote a novel about a fantastic ocean liner that was wrecked on
an iceberg. There were striking similarities between this fictional boat
and the not-yet-built Titanic. Both could carry about 3,000 people and
neither had nearly enough lifeboats. The novel was called "Futility."
The liner in the book was called the Titan.
---------------------------
weird, huh?
--steve
Jim Powers
William Daystrom wrote:
> Here's a couple of thoughts on a similar line: it is believed by many that
> the gradually disappearing lights of the Titanic (as she sank) indicated to
> the Californian's officers that the ship was sailing away, not sinking. If
> the lights suddenly went out, say, very soon after the collision, would they
> have acted differently? How about repeatedly turning the lights on and off,
> like a gigantic morse code signal? The Californian couldn't mistake *that*.
> Well, given their actions that night, I suppose they could.
>
> --William
Wonder if there was any other way they could have gotten the attention
of the Californian. Maybe Captain Smith could have blown an SOS on the
ship's steam whistle. Or maybe get everyone on deck and have them yell
in unison: "WE'RE SINKING!!!"
James R. Ebright
On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 04:32:44 -0800, Derek <doba...@ups.edu> wrote:
>
>
>medge...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> I think if The Captain of the Titanic had opened up all the Wartertight
>> Compartments then the ship would have filled up and sank at an even pace
>> unstead of tipping over .It would have taken 8 or more hrs to sink if
>> they had done this .The Carpathia would have gotten to the rescue just
>> in time to save every one on the ship .Does any one think this could
>> have been done .
>
>What I wonder about is IF it would have taken longer. I don't think so.
>Could have capsized (would have meant NO survivors), or gone down even
>faster. How do you figure it would have taken almost 3 times longer?
The first poster is completely correct. Given the rate at which the
Titanic sank one can assume a total of 12 sq feet of hole (spread over
5 watertight compartments). Had the watertight doors been OPENED,
this water inflow would have been evenly distributed over the ship
instead of in confined to the bow. This would have had two effects:
1) water would have flowed to the stern where the better pumps were;
and 2) the ship would have settled evenly instead of going down by the
bow.
The latter point is the most important. By settling by the bow, the
waterline reached reached the anchor chain hole much quicker. Once
the anchor chain hole went beneith the waterline, the rate of water
intake increased to the equivalent of a 24 square foot hole. Once the
bow hatches went beneith the waterline, the water intake increased to
a several hundred square foot hole. At this point, the Titanic sank
within minutes.
While the initial 12 square foot hole spread over 5 watertight
compartments doomed the Titanic...it could not stay afloat, opening
the watertight doors would have certainly delayed the sinking. The
calculations in Pellegrino's book indicate the delay would have been
enough to allow Cunard's Carpathia to arrive before the Titanic went
completely under.
--
A/~~\A Jim Ebright NET Security: http://www.coil.com/~ebright/
((0 0))_______ Spam,eggs,sausage,and Spam. That's not got much...
\ /COWlumbus\"True peace is not merely the absence of tension: It
(--)\ Ahia | is the presence of justice," Martin Luther King,Jr.
R Hammett
James R. Ebright wrote in message <34b4e09a...@news.coil.com>...
Why did not they stuff some laundry from the outside (it was dead calm) in
some of the 12 square feet of openings as was apparently a known maritime
technique?
Nrseman
I think they answer to the questions about Titanic's damage control lies in the
ship's organization.
Captain Smith seemed to go catatonic after Andrews pronounced her doom.
Andrews declared her lost, and the few officers privy to his direct
announcement never seemed to feel the need to challenge it.
No one seemed to grasp that while the ship indeed was going to be a loss, there
was merit in trying to keep her afloat as long as possible.
What is missing is ENERGY on behalf of the ship's chain of command. After
reading about the fine qualities of the CARPATHIA's Captain Roston, who
navigated his ship to TITANIC at maximum speed, through the ice-field, and
pick-up everyone without mishap, I cam only imaginewhat a well organized and
led ship like his might have done.
1) The British inquery agreed that ship's laundry could have been used to at
least slow the flow of water into the ship. No herclean damage control efforts
were made.
2) The British Inquery also agreed in principle that opening the doors would
have bought more time. Why? When TITANIC sank large portions of it weren't
flooded. The WEIGHT of the flooded bow pulled the ship underr water, and
eventually broke its back. Allowing even flooding through out the hull would
have maximized oumping effectiveness, and wouyld have required MORE total
flooding to bring about the sinking.
3) No attempt was made to run to the lights of the CALIFORNIA, which were
clearly visible.
In short, a better organization of the ships's officers might have saved many
more lives.
MNichol
>Subject: Re: IF they opened all the Watertight doors
>From: nrs...@aol.com (Nrseman)
>Date: Sat, Jan 10, 1998 03:39 EST
>Message-id: <19980110083...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
>I think they answer to the questions about Titanic's damage control lies in
>the
>ship's organization.
>
>Captain Smith seemed to go catatonic after Andrews pronounced her doom.
>
>Andrews declared her lost, and the few officers privy to his direct
>announcement never seemed to feel the need to challenge it.
>
>No one seemed to grasp that while the ship indeed was going to be a loss,
>there
>was merit in trying to keep her afloat as long as possible.
>
>What is missing is ENERGY on behalf of the ship's chain of command. After
>reading about the fine qualities of the CARPATHIA's Captain Roston, who
>navigated his ship to TITANIC at maximum speed, through the ice-field, and
>pick-up everyone without mishap, I cam only imaginewhat a well organized and
>led ship like his might have done.
>
>1) The British inquery agreed that ship's laundry could have been used to at
>least slow the flow of water into the ship. No herclean damage control
>efforts
>were made.
>
After recent sonar assessment showing all of the holes and punches, and their
locations, it would have been virtually impossible to have achieved this task
and shown any effectiveness.
>2) The British Inquery also agreed in principle that opening the doors would
>have bought more time. Why? When TITANIC sank large portions of it weren't
>flooded. The WEIGHT of the flooded bow pulled the ship underr water, and
>eventually broke its back. Allowing even flooding through out the hull would
>have maximized oumping effectiveness, and wouyld have required MORE total
>flooding to bring about the sinking.
>
You're right, the thought here was to have brought the ship to flooding on an
even keel and slow the sinking process. However, some feel this even flooding
would have knocked out the ships pumps and the dynamo's and generators that
were providing lighting.
>3) No attempt was made to run to the lights of the CALIFORNIA, which were
>clearly visible.
>
It's doubtful that the integrety of the hull would have stood up to this, in
fact it may have caused more damage and increased the rate of incoming water.
>In short, a better organization of the ships's officers might have saved many
>more lives.
>
This I agree with!
Mark Nichol
David Gabrielson
You have me intrigued, where did you get this information.
> 1) The British inquiry agreed that ship's laundry could have been used to
at least slow the flow of water into the ship. No Herculean damage control
efforts were made.
I have always wonder what would of slowed, or perhaps stopped the sinking.
The only solution I could think of is slowing the leakage in the first
compartment. This compartment filled slower and to my mind could of been
save if something was lowered over the side to "stop up" the leak. Then
using the pumps to keep the water level down.
Also if the doors to the other compartments were opened, is there a time
when the weight from the front made the angle of the ship so great as to
defeat this solution?
Its interesting to think, if the watertight doors would not have closed,
someone might of been able to shore up a compartment, close the watertight
doors and save the ship.
Comments?
David Gabrielson
dgab...@winternet.nospam.com
Remove nospam to reply
bra...@bellatlantic.net
Before seeing the Titanic movie I went to a bookstore and found a book
on the making
of the Titanic movie. I was skimming through it and I came across a
section where
it talked about the Titanic wreck in the movie. It showed how they had
actually
recreated the inside of the Titanic WRECK in the studio and showed
pictures of it.
I then saw the movie the next day thinking that all those shots of the
Titanic wreck
from the inside of the ship (including the piano part) were fake and
just a recreation
of the Titanic wreck. Another reason I thought that was because of the
clarity of the
shots. The only other wreck footage I had seen of the ship was with
regular video cameras
where it was unclear and fuzzy. But then after I saw the movie I heard
that they had actually
sent a movie camera down there to film the wreck. I am confused right
now. Were those shots
of inside the Titanic wreck real, or just a recreation in a studio? By
the way I didn't
like the movie very much. Cameron could have easily replaced those
fictional charachters with
real people from the Titanic and followed them around (like "A Night To
Remember" did)
instead of making a love story. And another thing I didn't like at all
was the fact that those
fictional charachters actually interacted with the real charachters like
in the scene with
Thomas Andrews standing in front of the fireplace and the scene with
Murdoch and that whole life
boat thing.
Before I get to my next question I would just like to contribute to the
list of innaccuracies.
Captain Smith never went into the wheel house right before going under
as the movie showed. There
have been reports of people in life boats who saw him swimming around in
the water. They asked him
if he would like to be helped aboard and he just swam away. Also the
scene where Murdoch shoots
a passenger before shooting himself never happened. There are many
other things I can list but I'd
rather just get onto my next question.
A while ago I purchased a piece of Titanic coal. My question, were
these tiny pieces of coal made
from larger pieces by just chopping them up into tiny pieces and then
selling them? Or did they
find all these tiny pieces on the ocean floor and scoop them up and then
sell them just as they had
found them? It really makes a difference to me because it is much more
neat to have a piece of coal
that actually had been in contact with the Titanic and the ocean floor
than to have a piece of coal
that might have made up a larger piece and never even came in contact
with the Titanic. You
understand what I'm saying?
Shawn
1)Regarding the shots of the wreck. They are authentic. Infact some of
them are recycled footage from a previous dive to the ship that was shown on
tv a few years back. Others were shot with a special camera especially for
this film. Rumour has it that Cameron himself was envolved in designing the
underwater camera that was used for this film.
2)Regarding the movie I strongly disagree. This was not a documentary. It
was a extremely well crafted piece of fiction set in a historical setting.
The fact that people are squabling about the acuracy of the details is a
treamendous compliment to the writers of a fictional tale. Given the fact
that we were not there and the people on Titanic were real people with real
desendents it would not be proper to portray the real people envolved.
Would you want your grandfather portrayed and named as one of the first
class men sitting in a lifeboat with his head turned while the screams of
3rd class women could be heard as they drown. This is why we use historical
fiction. It allows the story to be told to a new generation without
stepping on anyones toes.
Dwayne Allen Day
bra...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
: just a recreation
: of the Titanic wreck. Another reason I thought that was because of the
: clarity of the
: shots. The only other wreck footage I had seen of the ship was with
: regular video cameras
: where it was unclear and fuzzy. But then after I saw the movie I heard
: that they had actually
: sent a movie camera down there to film the wreck. I am confused right
: now. Were those shots
: of inside the Titanic wreck real, or just a recreation in a studio?
Some of the shots were real, some were reproduced in a tank. Imagine the
difficulties of filming at that depth with a robotic camera, where you
cannot re-shoot things. In a tank, if the camera jams, the light is
wrong, or something does not move the way you want it to, you simply start
over again. Buy the book and read it. Or get the Cinefex issue, which
deals with this in much more detail.
: the way I didn't
: like the movie very much. Cameron could have easily replaced those
: fictional charachters with
Cameron never does anything "easily," which is why he makes blockbuster
films.
: Before I get to my next question I would just like to contribute to the
: list of innaccuracies.
: Captain Smith never went into the wheel house right before going under
: as the movie showed. There
: have been reports of people in life boats who saw him swimming around in
: the water. They asked him
: if he would like to be helped aboard and he just swam away. Also the
: scene where Murdoch shoots
: a passenger before shooting himself never happened. There are many
: other things I can list but I'd
: rather just get onto my next question.
You need to do more reading on the subject. There is evidence to support
both scenes and actually pretty good evidence to support Smith going back
to the bridge.
: A while ago I purchased a piece of Titanic coal. My question, were
: these tiny pieces of coal made
: from larger pieces by just chopping them up into tiny pieces and then
: selling them? Or did they
: find all these tiny pieces on the ocean floor and scoop them up and then
: sell them just as they had
: found them? It really makes a difference to me because it is much more
: neat to have a piece of coal
: that actually had been in contact with the Titanic and the ocean floor
: than to have a piece of coal
: that might have made up a larger piece and never even came in contact
: with the Titanic.
The coal was picked up in big pieces and then ground up into small pieces
to maximize profits. Of course, it might not even be from the Titanic,
either. Coal pretty much looks the same no matter where it's been...
: You
: understand what I'm saying?
No.
DDAY
Linde...@outlook.com
Bill Leary
news:d0aa66a3-22c0-46cd...@googlegroups.com...
> out about,
> much like the forensics of the sinking thet they didn't
Are you asking a question? Expressing opinions? Inviting comment?
Something else?
- Bill
