Suction and/or Lack Thereof
Beatlechik
Titanic went under she had a surprising lack of suction. In the movie of
course there was some demonstrated, and it only makes sense that a ship that
size would have a tremendous amount of it as it slipped under. Could the lack
of suction or small amount of it be in any way to(and i may be opening up a can
of worms by saying this) the ship being broken in half?) I've never heard the
suction issue completely explained and i'm wondering what the prevailing theory
is on that issue.
Melissa
~~This site has been designed by BBC Education to entertain and develop the
learning potential of pre-school children.
Please do not, however, allow your children to use the Internet unsupervised at
any time.~~
BBC Teletubbies Website
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
> Some of the lifeboat passengers who were crewmen remarked later that when
> Titanic went under she had a surprising lack of suction. In the movie of
> course there was some demonstrated, and it only makes sense that a ship that
> size would have a tremendous amount of it as it slipped under. Could the lack
> of suction or small amount of it be in any way to(and i may be opening up a can
> of worms by saying this) the ship being broken in half?) I've never heard the
> suction issue completely explained and i'm wondering what the prevailing theory
> is on that issue.
I can think of two different possible reasons why there was relatively
little suction. One is that the stern section sank rather slowly, and
the second is that she sank more or less stern-up which would present
the most streamlined possible shape to the water she was displacing.
Some folks have suggested that the suction of a sinking ship is a myth
or folk tale, but it is too well documented in other cases. The Titanic
was the exception here.
The breaking of the ship may well have reduced the suction in that the
stern section was relieved of the enormous weight of the rest of the
water-filled ship. And I think that the effect shown in Cameron's movie,
that of people being pulled in through open hatches, portholes, etc, was
probably very real. I sometimes wonder if that's what happend to Jack
Thayers and Colonel Gracies friends who suddenly disappeared. It very
nearly happened to Lightoller!
Regards- Doug King
Andrew and Rebecca Hall
> I can think of two different possible reasons why there was relatively
> little suction. One is that the stern section sank rather slowly, and
> the second is that she sank more or less stern-up which would present
> the most streamlined possible shape to the water she was displacing.
The other factor is that eyewitness accounts of little suction are
"self-selecting" -- those who experienced significant suction during
the sinking generally weren't around to tell about it later.
> And I think that the effect shown in Cameron's movie,
> that of people being pulled in through open hatches, portholes, etc, was
> probably very real.
Yes -- another nice touch in the film is the reverse effect -- hatches
and skylights in the stern blowing open as the pressure of the air
trapped inside increases as the hull settles in the water.
-----------> AH
______________________________________________
What were their names, tell me,
What were their names?
Did you have a friend
On the good Reuben James?
JoelTheCat
relieved much of the suction?
Aravantis
>suction issue completely explained and i'm wondering what the prevailing
>theory
>is on that issue.
Do you mean suction as in water rushing into the ship during sinking, or water
following the ship after sinking? If during, then a form or another of suction
is to be expected as water fills up the spaces in the ship. If after the
sinking, then from what I've read, such suction would be minimum, if none at
all. When the Andrea Doria went down broadside, after sinking, the port
lifeboats were still seen bobbing over the bubbles.
But this may have something to do with the speed of the ship's decent, as both
Titanic and Andrea Doria went down pretty slowly, so the speed of water rushing
back to where the ship was may be less. Therefore, the amount of air released
from the ship to create pockets of less-dense water that would cause objects to
fall through didn't happen. But that's just a hypothesis. I'm not a physics
major.
~James in Greater Cleveland
. / /
. / /_7 /_7 /_7 /_7 /
. / __/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /_n__/
._____/__d::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.....______
.|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Best viewed in Arial)
patc...@nh.ultranet.com
but I'm not sure. Someone here referred to other ships sinking
and the suction-anything on film?
Andrys D Basten
>The breaking of the ship may well have reduced the suction in that the
>stern section was relieved of the enormous weight of the rest of the
>water-filled ship. And I think that the effect shown in Cameron's movie,
>that of people being pulled in through open hatches, portholes, etc, was
>probably very real. I sometimes wonder if that's what happend to Jack
>Thayers and Colonel Gracies friends who suddenly disappeared. It very
>nearly happened to Lightoller!
That's a very good point! And twice it almost happened. Scary.
--
===========================================================
Andrys Basten <and...@netcom.com>
CNE, Basten Micro Consulting
San Francisco/East Bay - 510/235-3861
Have music, will travel: piano, harpsichord, recorders
http://www.andrys.com -Online resources
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html -Peru photos w/Canon Elph
Andrys D Basten
Andrew and Rebecca Hall <tig...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>
>> I can think of two different possible reasons why there was relatively
>> little suction. One is that the stern section sank rather slowly, and
>> the second is that she sank more or less stern-up which would present
>> the most streamlined possible shape to the water she was displacing.
>
>The other factor is that eyewitness accounts of little suction are
>"self-selecting" -- those who experienced significant suction during
>the sinking generally weren't around to tell about it later.
Another good point. Had never thought about this when (surviving)
people said there was little suction.
- A
Jackie McElroy
>> that of people being pulled in through open hatches, portholes, etc, was
>> probably very real.
> Yes -- another nice touch in the film is the reverse effect -- hatches
> and skylights in the stern blowing open as the pressure of the air
> trapped inside increases as the hull settles in the water.
Would that not also account for the lack of suction as the stern went
down? With the section filling up with water and the air forced out,
there would have been little air left in for the water to displace. It
is my understanding that it is the rushing in of water and forcing out
of air that causing the suction. Wouldn't have been much air there to
be forced out by the incoming water because of the way the stern
section sank. The air was already out and the water already in.
Don't really know; I only made a C in the one physics class I took in
college.
-jackie
Jackie McElroy, B.A., E.M.D.
mcja...@usa.pipeline.com
Venice Florida USA
Fire-Rescue Dispatcher
Sarasota County 9-1-1
(I speak for me,
not my boss)
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
The "suction" of a ship sinking is loosely referring to the turbulence
in the water as the thing goes rushing to the bottom. There is a Navy
training film which shows a Victory ship (successor to the Liberty
class) going down in a WW2 convoy. This particular ship went down almost
level, and a lifeboat full of men was pulled under water about twenty
seconds (IIRC) after the ship disappeared. The men had on lifejackets
and the lifeboat had positive flotation so they popped back up, but I'm
sure it was a *very* unpleasant experience. A pretty graphic
demonstration, I'd like to show that film to people who say theres no
such thing.
If you read about the SS Central America ("The Ship Of Gold"), there are
vivid descriptins of getting caught in the suction as the ship went
down.
Regards- Doug King
Joe Knapp
Considering the election results, the title of this thread coould
be appropriate on alt.politics.clinton.
BILL: The boats will come back for us, Hillary. Hold on just a
little longer. They had to row away for the suction and now
they'll be coming back.
DEMOCRAT: They'll pull us right down I tell ya!
BOXER: Aw knock it off, yer scarin' me. Come on girls, grab
your oars. Let's go. (nobody moves) Well come on!
Joe
Joe
John Canning
Jackie McElroy wrote in message <71oa98$6m5$2...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
> It
>is my understanding that it is the rushing in of water and forcing out
>of air that causing the suction. Wouldn't have been much air there to
>be forced out by the incoming water because of the way the stern
>section sank. The air was already out and the water already in.
>
My understanding was that the suction refered to currents created by the
ship sinking. Not unlike standing next to a highway when a semi goes by.
TOM ELEVEN
In article <19981103194219...@ng139.aol.com>, joelt...@aol.com
(JoelTheCat) writes:
>
>Maybe the fact that the bow section had plenty of time to fill with water
>relieved much of the suction?
>
>
There likely WAS suction, but it was confined to "eddys" and "whirlpools", at
various areas around the ship. If you were not in one of the whirlpools, then
you didnt get sucked down, If you were, then you didnt survive to tell about
it.---we here little about the suction, because we have only heard from those
who were not caught it it.
TOM
Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
tome...@aol.com
Aqualieb
the ship as soon as possible to avoid a panic of those in the water trying to
gain access the lifeboats and possibly swamping them. This is a historical
fact. Recall that the crew knew there simply wasn'y enough lifeboats and a
panic mostlikely would occur. This is the tradegy to TITANIC.
As to whether there is a suction when a vessel of significant size sinks, it
depends on the shape of the vessel (to create turbulance) and the voids that
water can reach (cargo hatches, doorways, etc.). Navy and Coast Guard training
films clearly demonstrate this. The Navy training film spoken of earlier
cannot demonstrate bulkheads collapsing after a vessel is under, creating
access to voids within the holds.
The TITANIC's baker step off the aft rail as the TITANIC slipped beneath the
surface without getting his hair wet is a fact. In fact, the TITANIC barely
made a sound as she went on.
Remember: vessel shape and rate of sinking determine the turbulance or
suction-like effect. Whirlpools and eddies would occur on or near deck
structures and passageways. No effect would occur next to the hull itself
unless an open doorway or porthole with air on the other side was present.
BTW; all are possible during a sinking as people trapped below deck would
surely open portholes to cry for help.
To repeat: In the case of the TITANIC, the lifeboat crews were advised to row
away from the ship as soon as possible to avoid a panic of those in the water
trying to access the lifeboats and possibly swamping them. Suction or no
suction, the intent was clear. Consider the amount of lifeboats and space
versus the amount of people still left in the water. If every boat returned
and rescued every person in the water every lifeboat would have swamped.
Shipyard test or not, there just physically wasn't enough room for each boat to
handle 110 people each - fully clothed and soaked with bulky lifejackets on.
Dan Lieb
M. Perry
>
> In the case of the TITANIC, the lifeboat crews were ordered to row away from
> the ship as soon as possible to avoid a panic of those in the water trying to
> gain access the lifeboats and possibly swamping them. This is a historical
> fact. Recall that the crew knew there simply wasn'y enough lifeboats and a
> panic mostlikely would occur. This is the tradegy to TITANIC.
Hello Dan,
Just a question for you. You say the crews were "ordered" to row away
to avoid the boats being swamped by those poor souls floundering in the
water. Where did you read this information? As I recall reading,
witnesses recounted Captain Smith shouting to the boats to come _back_
to the ship to pick up more people, but alas the boats either could not
hear him or basically ignored him. What evidence is there to support
that this supposed order was given?
<snip>
> To repeat: In the case of the TITANIC, the lifeboat crews were advised to row
> away from the ship as soon as possible to avoid a panic of those in the water
> trying to access the lifeboats and possibly swamping them. Suction or no
> suction, the intent was clear. Consider the amount of lifeboats and space
> versus the amount of people still left in the water. If every boat returned
> and rescued every person in the water every lifeboat would have swamped.
> Shipyard test or not, there just physically wasn't enough room for each boat to
> handle 110 people each - fully clothed and soaked with bulky lifejackets on.
Again, "advised" or "ordered" and by whom? Thanks in advance for
clarifying.
Regards,
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I am not young enough to know everything."
- James M. Barrie
Please remove NOSPAM from my address when replying.
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
>
> In the case of the TITANIC, the lifeboat crews were ordered to row away from
> the ship as soon as possible to avoid a panic of those in the water trying to
> gain access the lifeboats and possibly swamping them. This is a historical
> fact.
Hmm. Everything I've read indicates that most of the boats were ordered
to stay close to the ship. Lightoller specifically said that he ordered
the bosun and about six men to go open an aft gangway, and instructed
the boats to row to this gangway and load more passengers.
I've also seen references to Captain Smith bellowing through a megaphone
at the crews of at least one lifeboat to return to the ship to pick up
more passengers.
Of course, this all happened well before the actual sinking and neither
the risk of swamping by crazed swimmers no the suction (or lack thereof)
was a factor in these orders.
Regards- Doug King
> ...... Recall that the crew knew there simply wasn'y enough lifeboats and a
> panic mostlikely would occur. This is the tradegy to TITANIC.
>
> As to whether there is a suction when a vessel of significant size sinks, it
> depends on the shape of the vessel (to create turbulance) and the voids that
> water can reach (cargo hatches, doorways, etc.). Navy and Coast Guard training
> films clearly demonstrate this. The Navy training film spoken of earlier
> cannot demonstrate bulkheads collapsing after a vessel is under, creating
> access to voids within the holds.
>
> The TITANIC's baker step off the aft rail as the TITANIC slipped beneath the
> surface without getting his hair wet is a fact. In fact, the TITANIC barely
> made a sound as she went on.
>
> Remember: vessel shape and rate of sinking determine the turbulance or
> suction-like effect. Whirlpools and eddies would occur on or near deck
> structures and passageways. No effect would occur next to the hull itself
> unless an open doorway or porthole with air on the other side was present.
> BTW; all are possible during a sinking as people trapped below deck would
> surely open portholes to cry for help.
>
> To repeat: In the case of the TITANIC, the lifeboat crews were advised to row
> away from the ship as soon as possible to avoid a panic of those in the water
> trying to access the lifeboats and possibly swamping them. Suction or no
> suction, the intent was clear. Consider the amount of lifeboats and space
> versus the amount of people still left in the water. If every boat returned
> and rescued every person in the water every lifeboat would have swamped.
> Shipyard test or not, there just physically wasn't enough room for each boat to
> handle 110 people each - fully clothed and soaked with bulky lifejackets on.
>
> Dan Lieb
SexyK...@webtv.net
OperaBufa
>The TITANIC's baker step off the aft rail as the TITANIC slipped
> beneath the surface without getting his hair wet is a fact. In fact, the
> TITANIC barely made a sound as she went on.
Both Lightoller and Gracie reported being sucked under as the boat sank. So
there was some suction, just not at the stern.
Karen (Opera Buffa)
What I know about opera is laughable.
Send e-mail to bikrbabe @ aol.com
Eric Seright-Payne
>Aqualieb wrote:
>
>>The TITANIC's baker step off the aft rail as the TITANIC slipped
>> beneath the surface without getting his hair wet is a fact. In fact, the
>> TITANIC barely made a sound as she went on.
>
>Both Lightoller and Gracie reported being sucked under as the boat sank. So
>there was some suction, just not at the stern.
Lightoller, though, wasn't speaking of suction, per se, but rather his
own individual circumstances.
Lightoller was pulled up against an intake vent by the in rushing
water, and was only blown off - presumably - when a boiler exploded
below, blowing air out through the exhaust.
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
Aqualieb
John Maxton-Graham is an excellent source (author, researcher, lecturer) on the
topic of TITANIC, as well as Walter Lord. Contact them through their
publicists or agents.
Dan
Tom Pappas
So
>> there was some suction, just not at the stern.
They were talking about being carried into the ship by water flowing into
voids (Lightoller was blown back out, evidently by the air displaced by the
inflow). This is not the same as the "suction" that seems not to have
existed at the stern.
--
Half-baked Titanic theories galore at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
JETman
>
> Aqualieb wrote:
>
> >The TITANIC's baker step off the aft rail as the TITANIC slipped
> > beneath the surface without getting his hair wet is a fact. In fact, the
> > TITANIC barely made a sound as she went on.
>
> there was some suction, just not at the stern.
>
>
>
>
>
I think that it depends on the location.
--
JT, Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival, (the kind in
a
can!), held each year in late March/early April on Auditorium Shores.
==============================
______________________________
==============================
Replace the “*” with an “s“ when replying!
Eric Seright-Payne
>Aqualieb wrote:
>
>>The TITANIC's baker step off the aft rail as the TITANIC slipped
>> beneath the surface without getting his hair wet is a fact. In fact, the
>> TITANIC barely made a sound as she went on.
>
>Both Lightoller and Gracie reported being sucked under as the boat sank. So
>there was some suction, just not at the stern.
Lightoller, though, wasn't speaking of suction, per se, but rather his