A crack in the hull
Tom Pappas
might have been caused by the iceberg. Just a few inches above the silt line
and (I assume) in the vicinity of Boiler Room 5 or 6, they found a hole
about two inches wide and maybe a foot long (it was hard to estimate its
size because of the indistinct image).
This is, arguably, the hole that sank the ship. Because if it had been
plugged and the compartment behind it pumped down, the damage would then be
within specification (i.e., afloat with her first four compartments
flooded).
I will stick with my original surmise that decisive action on the part of
the crew would have saved the vessel.
--
Half-baked Titanic theories galore at
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1
Could the collision be avoided?
Hitting the iceberg head-on
How many could have been saved?
A tale of two icebergs
Could the ship have been kept afloat?
How many could Californian have saved?
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
Andrew Baines
> This is, arguably, the hole that sank the ship. Because if it had been
> plugged and the compartment behind it pumped down, the damage would then
be
> within specification (i.e., afloat with her first four compartments
> flooded).
>
> I will stick with my original surmise that decisive action on the part of
> the crew would have saved the vessel.
I have to disagree.
The water in boiler room 4, coming from below, points to damage to the
double bottom. Carlisle dismissed the idea of stuffing the hole as
impossible. He did accept that mats could have been used, but this would
have needed trained men, who knew exactly where the hole was. besides, I
for one would not have fancied my chances of locating that hole, and then
stuffing it whilst water was spewing through it, at what must have been
quite a fast rate. The Titanic was bound to sink, no matter what was done,
as soon as she grazed that berg. Stuffing the crack may have bought them
time enough for the Carpathia to arrive, but I would have concentrated on
getting as many people into the boats as possible. this may well have
proved even more difficult if they thought that the ship was sinking too
quickly. At the time this descision would have to be made, there were no
gurantees a ship was close, the Carpathia turned out to be 4 (well, 3 1/2)
hours away in the end. The only option was to concentrate on getting the
boats away.
Andrew.
Berg1912Ti
Most Sincerely,
Bruce M. Caplan
Editor of the new edition of "The Sinking of the Titanic"
The very first 1912 Titanic narrative-originally by Logan Marshall.
Tom Pappas
>
>> This is, arguably, the hole that sank the ship. Because if it had been
>> plugged and the compartment behind it pumped down, the damage would then
>be
>> within specification (i.e., afloat with her first four compartments
>> flooded).
>>
>> I will stick with my original surmise that decisive action on the part of
>> the crew would have saved the vessel.
>I have to disagree.
> The water in boiler room 4, coming from below, points to damage to the
>double bottom.
But the the pumps were keeping ahead of the inflow in #4 (as well as that in
#5) until the water began coming in from #6, which was close to 1:00. The
minor damage in #4 and #5 was not fatal, any more than the massive damage in
the cargo holds and peak tank. If #6 had been pumped down, the ship would
stay afloat indefinitely.
> Carlisle dismissed the idea of stuffing the hole as impossible.
I have never heard that Carlisle was aboard. But whether or not anyone
dismissed it as impossible is irrelevant. What we want to look at is whether
or not it WAS possible.
>He did accept that mats could have been used, but this would
>have needed trained men, who knew exactly where the hole was.
The men were available, it they had wanted to try it. The stokers had SEEN
the hole in #6 before evacuating, so its precise location was known.
>besides, I
>for one would not have fancied my chances of locating that hole, and then
>stuffing it whilst water was spewing through it, at what must have been
>quite a fast rate.
The inflow would have created quite a suction - probably enough so that it
would only be necessary to get a mat CLOSE and let the water pull it into
the crack. Similar repairs had been done since at least the 18th century.
> The Titanic was bound to sink, no matter what was done,
>as soon as she grazed that berg.
Yeah, that's what they thought.
> Stuffing the crack may have bought them
>time enough for the Carpathia to arrive, but I would have concentrated on
>getting as many people into the boats as possible. this may well have
>proved even more difficult if they thought that the ship was sinking too
>quickly.
But remember that once the first five compartments filled up, the ship
STOPPED sinking for almost an hour. There were men working in #5 until the
water roared in from #6. And even then it might not have been too late.
> At the time this descision would have to be made, there were no
>gurantees a ship was close, the Carpathia turned out to be 4 (well, 3 1/2)
>hours away in the end. The only option was to concentrate on getting the
>boats away.
There's no reason they couldn't do both. They simply didn't think of it,
just as no one thought to light a fire on deck - a universally recognized
distress signal.
Tom Pappas
<19990503133121...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>Tom, isn't that crack they found right where the fire was smoldering?
I'm not sure, Bruce. They weren't too clear about exactly where it was,
except that it was evidently the only one above the silt line. That would
probably make it the one in the corner of the bunker in Boiler Room 5!
JETman
>
> The Discovery Channel expedition went looking for cracks in the hull that
> might have been caused by the iceberg. Just a few inches above the silt line
> and (I assume) in the vicinity of Boiler Room 5 or 6, they found a hole
> about two inches wide and maybe a foot long (it was hard to estimate its
> size because of the indistinct image).
>
> plugged and the compartment behind it pumped down, the damage would then be
> within specification (i.e., afloat with her first four compartments
> flooded).
>
> I will stick with my original surmise that decisive action on the part of
> the crew would have saved the vessel.
>
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, damage control was not
considered a possible alternative. At the very least, the sinking would
have been delayed to allow rescue of all aboard.
And, I'll betcha that the rules for lifeboat numbers, (a seat for each
occupant), would have come about without a real disaster having had to
occur.
--
Regards,
JT, Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
(the kind in a can!)
Saturday, May 1, 1999 at Auditorium Shores on Town Lake!
Replace the “*” with an “s“ when replying!
JETman
>
> In article <TZnX2.86$IE2....@news15.ispnews.com>, "Tom Pappas"
> <t...@pcslink.com> wrote:
>
> > Berg1912Ti wrote in message
> > <19990503133121...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
> > >Tom, isn't that crack they found right where the fire was smoldering?
> >
> > I'm not sure, Bruce. They weren't too clear about exactly where it was,
> > except that it was evidently the only one above the silt line. That would
> > probably make it the one in the corner of the bunker in Boiler Room 5!
>
> forward bulkhead, right where Fireman Barrett said it was.
>
> 2. You can heat the bulkhead plate with a coal fire to the observed
> "cherry red" temperature till the cows come home and NOT affect it's
> fracture properties appreciably nor its strength.
>
I sort of hesitate to take up this issue with an expert but in the line
of my experience, it is much easier to shape "cherry red" steel as
opposed to the same at room temperatures. What exactly are the yield
characteristics of steel at room temperature vs. that of "cherry red"
metal?
> 3. We modeled the effect of the fire on applying thermal expansion
> stresses on the rivets and joints, and it applies a stress less than 1/10
> of the strength of either.
>
> It's amazing what people are willing to put forward that is unprovable
> just to sell a book.
Tom Pappas
>forward bulkhead, right where Fireman Barrett said it was.
It appeared to be an inch or so wide and maybe a foot long. Just about the
right area for a "fire hose" volume of water - am I close? Can you tell us
how they determined its precise location?
>2. You can heat the bulkhead plate with a coal fire to the observed
>"cherry red" temperature till the cows come home and NOT affect it's
>fracture properties appreciably nor its strength.
What range of temperature is cherry red, and how hot does the metal have to
get before its strength is affected?
>3. We modeled the effect of the fire on applying thermal expansion
>stresses on the rivets and joints, and it applies a stress less than 1/10
>of the strength of either.
What allowed the water to suddenly rush into Boiler Room #5 just before
1:00?
JETman
>
> >1. It was two feet above the floor in boiler room number five near the
> >forward bulkhead, right where Fireman Barrett said it was.
>
> It appeared to be an inch or so wide and maybe a foot long. Just about the
> right area for a "fire hose" volume of water - am I close? Can you tell us
> how they determined its precise location?
>
> >2. You can heat the bulkhead plate with a coal fire to the observed
> >"cherry red" temperature till the cows come home and NOT affect it's
> >fracture properties appreciably nor its strength.
>
> What range of temperature is cherry red, and how hot does the metal have to
> get before its strength is affected?
I know tha I am not the person that this is directed to but in the
course of my hobby of restoring old cars, I often heat various metals to
aid in fabrication. With ferrous based alloys (steel), as soon as the
metal begins to "glow," it is easy to change/adjust the shape. Also, if
cooled too quickly, (room temperature water), it becomes very brittle
and can crack/fail easily. I just think that "cherry red" metal
suddenly subjected to 28 degree water would have an adverse effect on
structural integrity.
>
> >3. We modeled the effect of the fire on applying thermal expansion
> >stresses on the rivets and joints, and it applies a stress less than 1/10
> >of the strength of either.
>
> What allowed the water to suddenly rush into Boiler Room #5 just before
> 1:00?
Catastrophic failure "somewhere."
Dante Scott
wrote:
[portions deleted]
>It's amazing what people are willing to put forward that is unprovable
>just to sell a book.
...I know, I know. When will Eaton and Haas learn?
Dante
AOL-IM:DanteScott
#ADDisneyland:Dante_Scott
ADD Code:ARp3 aO3 D20 FW2 nI k0 W0 M0
Bill Lambrukos
except that it was evidently the only one above the silt line. That would
probably make it the one in the corner of the bunker in Boiler Room 5!<<
I thought they were pretty clear that it was in the boiler room and not the
bunker. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems unlikely it would have been
seen/described as it was if it was in the bunker. Your thoughts ?
Bill
Berg1912Ti
Tim Foecke
> Berg1912Ti wrote in message
> <19990503133121...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
> >Tom, isn't that crack they found right where the fire was smoldering?
>
> I'm not sure, Bruce. They weren't too clear about exactly where it was,
> except that it was evidently the only one above the silt line. That would
> probably make it the one in the corner of the bunker in Boiler Room 5!
1. It was two feet above the floor in boiler room number five near the
forward bulkhead, right where Fireman Barrett said it was.
2. You can heat the bulkhead plate with a coal fire to the observed
"cherry red" temperature till the cows come home and NOT affect it's
fracture properties appreciably nor its strength.
3. We modeled the effect of the fire on applying thermal expansion
stresses on the rivets and joints, and it applies a stress less than 1/10
of the strength of either.
It's amazing what people are willing to put forward that is unprovable
Berg1912Ti
Tim, you say,
>It's amazing what people are willing to put forward that is unprovable
>just to sell a book.
Then you go on--
>We modeled the effect of the fire on applying thermal expansion
>stresses on the rivets and joints, and it applies a stress less than 1/10
>of the strength of either.
I think it is amazing how big scientific words can mesmerize us, because we
can't understand what you're saying!!
So we are all to understand that hundreds of tons of coal burning in a coal bin
would have
no effect on the strength of the steel? It is because of expert opinions like
yours that I have been constantly fighting to bring up the possible damage
from the fire all over the US!
As a Titanic Buff, I was amazed, that although the Titanic left Southampton
with a coal-fire, most narratives have ignored that fact. I'm not trying to
promote my book, because anyone can read the full text of it on the Web for
free!!
I am promoting my theory, that the fire on the Titanic may have been
significant enough to cause damage and possibly the figurative "straw that
broke the camel's back". I can not understand how heating metal and then
cooling it down will not decrease the strength of the metal?
Of course it is only a theory and I have always maintained that I can not prove
it!!
Douglas King
> I have never heard that Carlisle was aboard. But whether or not anyone
> dismissed it as impossible is irrelevant. What we want to look at is whether
> or not it WAS possible.
Or practical ;)
BTW Carlisle wasn't aboard, he gave testimony at the British Inquiry.
> >He did accept that mats could have been used, but this would
> >have needed trained men, who knew exactly where the hole was.
>
> The men were available, it they had wanted to try it. The stokers had SEEN
> the hole in #6 before evacuating, so its precise location was known.
True. This is one reason why I think shoring from the inside would be
the most practical approach. However, could it have been done in the
time they had?
> >besides, I
> >for one would not have fancied my chances of locating that hole, and then
> >stuffing it whilst water was spewing through it, at what must have been
> >quite a fast rate.
>
> The inflow would have created quite a suction - probably enough so that it
> would only be necessary to get a mat CLOSE and let the water pull it into
> the crack. Similar repairs had been done since at least the 18th century.
Fothering had ben a standard practice before the 18th century, but not
by letting the suction pull patching material against the hull. I
strongly doubt there would any current in the water around the hull
except for right up against the leak- ie less than six inches away from
it.
> But remember that once the first five compartments filled up, the ship
> STOPPED sinking for almost an hour.
I don't know where you are getting this from. From what I have read of
the RINA report, this is not true. And other accounts distinctly mention
that the ship's sinking accelerated as she went down by the head.
> ... There were men working in #5 until the
> water roared in from #6. And even then it might not have been too late.
>
> > At the time this descision would have to be made, there were no
> >gurantees a ship was close, the Carpathia turned out to be 4 (well, 3 1/2)
> >hours away in the end. The only option was to concentrate on getting the
> >boats away.
>
> There's no reason they couldn't do both.
There was a rather limited amount of trained manpower.
> .... They simply didn't think of it,
> just as no one thought to light a fire on deck - a universally recognized
> distress signal.
This is an uwarranted assumption on your part. There is no way of
knowing what they thought of. The men involved in the decision-making
all died.
Regards- Doug King
--
This is what we look like when we're at our best:
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/ei/eisboch-webjump/45.htm
Tom Pappas
>> STOPPED sinking for almost an hour.
>
>I don't know where you are getting this from. From what I have read of
>the RINA report, this is not true. And other accounts distinctly mention
>that the ship's sinking accelerated as she went down by the head.
I refer you to paragraph 4.12:
[The bow has just submerged to C deck, at 12:40.] "With all compartments
except No. 5 Boiler Room now full to the waterline the rate of sinking will
be significantly reduced as it is now dependent on the water spreading along
the flooded decks and percolating below through doors, stairways and similar
openings."
From this time until the door/bulkhead allowed #5 to flood (near 1:00),
water must have been coming into the ship through the abovementioned
openings. Where did it go? Not into the peak tank through #6 - they were
full to the waterline. So it must have been leaking into #5.
BUT #5 WAS BEING KEPT DRY BY THE PUMPS!!!
Not until water flooded in from #6 did the forecastle start down again, as
#5/6 filled (probably mostly from the crack in #6). It is at this moment
that Bell was heard to exclaim, "My God, we are lost!" (READ: up until that
moment, he thought there might be a chance.)
>> .... They simply didn't think of it,
>> just as no one thought to light a fire on deck - a universally recognized
>> distress signal.
>
>This is an uwarranted assumption on your part. There is no way of
>knowing what they thought of. The men involved in the decision-making
>all died.
Now you're getting downright pedantic (not that there's anything wrong with
that {:oş). All I meant was that since they didn't implement one of the most
obvious (and documented) measures that would attract attention to their
plight, it is equally conceivable that they didn't consider all possible
means of slowing or stopping the sinking.
george_...@my-dejanews.com
"Tom Pappas" <t...@pcslink.com> wrote:
>the RINA report,
>I refer you to paragraph 4.12:
>[The bow has just submerged to C deck, at 12:40.]
Hello, Tom.
In addition to the inaccurate time assigned to the bulkhead collapse by the
RINA people, George has found a number of additional sources which make it
clear that the entire RINA timeline of the sinking is hopelessly inaccurate.
1. When boat #13 was launched at 1:35 am, the forecastle head had not yet
submerged. (Barrett.)
2. When boat #15 was launched at 1:35 am, the Titanic's propellors were
sticking only half way out of the water. (Nicholls.)
3. When boat #4 was launched from A deck at 1:55 am, the forward end of A
deck was still 20 feet above the ocean's surface. (Ryerson.)
Contrary to what the RINA report claims, the Titanic's bow had definitely not
submerged to C deck by 12:40 am. George believes that the RINA timeline is
grossly misleading and should be discarded in favor of a timeline based on
what was *observed* to have happened instead of on what modern theoreticians
believe *must* have happened. It's clear that some unknown variables have
thrown the RINA report badly off track.
Sincerely,
Patricia Behe
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tim Foecke
> I am promoting my theory, that the fire on the Titanic may have been
> significant enough to cause damage and possibly the figurative "straw that
> broke the camel's back". I can not understand how heating metal and then
> cooling it down will not decrease the strength of the metal?
Exactly. You cannot understand because you are not a metallurgist. I
am. I have broken and bent and heated and cooled *Titanic bulkhead steel*
and I tell you that the properties are unaffected.
(I'll use little words so you can understand now). The steel was rolled
out of the mill yellow hot and allowed to air cool. The grain size is
already huge. The only things additional heating will do that would
affect the mechanical properties are 1) grow the grains (which are almost
at their max anyhoo) and 2) leave nasty contaminants on grain boundaries,
making them weak (there is not enough junk in the steel for this to
happen). So the properties are . . . unaffected!
>
> Of course it is only a theory and I have always maintained that I can
not prove
> it!!
And coming from a novice in the topic, I would not consider it even a
theory, because you cannot explain how the weakening happens. "The fire
may have weakened the steel." Ok, HOW? I might just as validly say "The
fireman may have been messing around with the rivets." To which you would
say, "Why?" I have told you that this fire would not have the effect you
theorize.
--
________________________________________________
Tim Foecke, Ph.D.
"I'm a Mechanical Metallurgist - I break things"
Douglas King
>
> >> But remember that once the first five compartments filled up, the ship
> >> STOPPED sinking for almost an hour.
> >
> >I don't know where you are getting this from. From what I have read of
> >the RINA report, this is not true. And other accounts distinctly mention
> >that the ship's sinking accelerated as she went down by the head.
>
>
> except No. 5 Boiler Room now full to the waterline the rate of sinking will
> be significantly reduced as it is now dependent on the water spreading along
> the flooded decks and percolating below through doors, stairways and similar
> openings."
Okay, riddle me this: will those doors, stairways, and similar openings
add up to more or less than the original 12 square feet of leak? How
about all the portholes which are now submerged?
Note also- "rate of sinking significantly reduced" is NOT the same as
"will now float indefinitely" or "the ship STOPPED sinking for almost an
hour." Semantics, y'know.
> From this time until the door/bulkhead allowed #5 to flood (near 1:00),
> water must have been coming into the ship through the abovementioned
> openings. Where did it go? Not into the peak tank through #6 - they were
> full to the waterline. So it must have been leaking into #5.
I think you are misinterpreting this. When they say "full to the
waterline" they could well mean the current waterline, which by
everyone's account was steadily rising. Obviously these spaces were
filled to well above the ships static load-line or designed waterline.
> BUT #5 WAS BEING KEPT DRY BY THE PUMPS!!!
Yup. That does not not at all mean that the ship reached equilibrium and
had stopped sinking. Looking back over Lightollers story, picking it up
from when he first began swinging out the boats shortly after midnight-
not believing that the Titanic would really sink, he says he kept
waiting for her to fetch up on her bulkheads. But she never did, and it
became clear that she was sinking ever faster as they worked.
After seeing George Behe's comments on the RINA report, I doubt very
seriously that I'm going to spend £110 to own my very own copy. Their
remarks on the head-on scenario disagree with your conclusions, Tom, so
why are you claiming them as *the ultimate authority* on this other
topic? Did they publish any of the math which produced their
conclusions?
> Not until water flooded in from #6 did the forecastle start down again, as
> #5/6 filled (probably mostly from the crack in #6). It is at this moment
> that Bell was heard to exclaim, "My God, we are lost!" (READ: up until that
> moment, he thought there might be a chance.)
Andrews, on the other hand, believed from the first damage reports that
the ship was going to sink. Which knew more about the ship and the math
involved in calculating what it would take to sink her?
> >> .... They simply didn't think of it,
> >This is an uwarranted assumption on your part. There is no way of
> >knowing what they thought of. The men involved in the decision-making
> >all died.
>
> Now you're getting downright pedantic (not that there's anything wrong with
> that {:oþ). All I meant was that since they didn't implement one of the most
> obvious (and documented) measures that would attract attention to their
> plight, it is equally conceivable that they didn't consider all possible
> means of slowing or stopping the sinking.
And it is equally conceivable (and to me, much more plausible) that they
would certainly have thought of commonplace, standard practice,
known-even-to-landlubbers actions to keep the ship afloat; and with much
greater knowledge of their immediate resources than you or I (or anyone
else) has, rejected them as impractical and of lower priority than
launching the boats.
Cheers- Doug King
Tom Pappas
>RINA people,
Didn't the 12:55 come from Barrett's testimony!
George has found a number of additional sources which make it
>clear that the entire RINA timeline of the sinking is hopelessly
inaccurate.
I wondered about that. I do know, for instance, that the 'C' series of
illustrations shows BR 5 almost completely full at T+30 (Condition C4), and
we all know that's bogus. The discrepancy, in fact, is what launched me on
this quest for more information about what was happening immediately before
#5 flooded.
>1. When boat #13 was launched at 1:35 am, the forecastle head had not yet
>submerged. (Barrett.)
This would be RINA's Condition C2, which they had pegged at T+20. Maybe they
took the assumed flow rates and worked out the trim angles from that. Sort
of like assuming 500 yards and arriving at 37 seconds in another well-known
calculation.
>2. When boat #15 was launched at 1:35 am, the Titanic's propellors were
>sticking only half way out of the water. (Nicholls.)
>
>3. When boat #4 was launched from A deck at 1:55 am, the forward end of A
>deck was still 20 feet above the ocean's surface. (Ryerson.)
>
>Contrary to what the RINA report claims, the Titanic's bow had definitely
not
>submerged to C deck by 12:40 am. George believes that the RINA timeline is
>grossly misleading and should be discarded in favor of a timeline based on
>what was *observed* to have happened instead of on what modern
theoreticians
>believe *must* have happened. It's clear that some unknown variables have
>thrown the RINA report badly off track.
Great stuff (assuming that everyone's watches were synchronized!)
Does George have a time line he could share with us? If not, would he like
help computing one?
Tom Pappas
>Tom Pappas wrote:
>>
>> >> But remember that once the first five compartments filled up, the ship
>> >> STOPPED sinking for almost an hour.
>> >
>> >I don't know where you are getting this from. From what I have read of
>> >the RINA report, this is not true. And other accounts distinctly mention
>> >that the ship's sinking accelerated as she went down by the head.
>>
>> I refer you to paragraph 4.12:
>>
>> [The bow has just submerged to C deck, at 12:40.] "With all compartments
>> except No. 5 Boiler Room now full to the waterline the rate of sinking
will
>> be significantly reduced as it is now dependent on the water spreading
along
>> the flooded decks and percolating below through doors, stairways and
similar
>> openings."
>
>Okay, riddle me this: will those doors, stairways, and similar openings
>add up to more or less than the original 12 square feet of leak? How
>about all the portholes which are now submerged?
I don't see how this matters. If an open porthole (hatch, whatever) has the
same pressure on both sides of it, there will be no flow. So the area is of
no consequence.
>Note also- "rate of sinking significantly reduced" is NOT the same as
>"will now float indefinitely" or "the ship STOPPED sinking for almost an
>hour." Semantics, y'know.
I take the phrase "significantly reduced" to be interchangeable with "within
the capacity of the ship's pumps." My question stands: where was the water
going between the time C deck was awash and #5 flooded (I hope George's
timeline produces a partial answer)?
>> From this time until the door/bulkhead allowed #5 to flood (near 1:00),
>> water must have been coming into the ship through the abovementioned
>> openings. Where did it go? Not into the peak tank through #6 - they were
>> full to the waterline. So it must have been leaking into #5.
>
>I think you are misinterpreting this. When they say "full to the
>waterline" they could well mean the current waterline, which by
>everyone's account was steadily rising. Obviously these spaces were
>filled to well above the ships static load-line or designed waterline.
>
>> BUT #5 WAS BEING KEPT DRY BY THE PUMPS!!!
>
>Yup. That does not not at all mean that the ship reached equilibrium and
>had stopped sinking. Looking back over Lightollers story, picking it up
>from when he first began swinging out the boats shortly after midnight-
>not believing that the Titanic would really sink, he says he kept
>waiting for her to fetch up on her bulkheads. But she never did, and it
>became clear that she was sinking ever faster as they worked.
First fast, now slower, faster again.
>After seeing George Behe's comments on the RINA report, I doubt very
>seriously that I'm going to spend £110 to own my very own copy. Their
>remarks on the head-on scenario disagree with your conclusions, Tom, so
>why are you claiming them as *the ultimate authority* on this other
>topic?
The words they used were "survival in the case of a head-on collision seems
almost certain." This is not in disagreement with "it is entirely possible
that..."
Did they publish any of the math which produced their
>conclusions?
Not that I know of.
>> Not until water flooded in from #6 did the forecastle start down again,
as
>> #5/6 filled (probably mostly from the crack in #6). It is at this moment
>> that Bell was heard to exclaim, "My God, we are lost!" (READ: up until
that
>> moment, he thought there might be a chance.)
>
>Andrews, on the other hand, believed from the first damage reports that
>the ship was going to sink. Which knew more about the ship and the math
>involved in calculating what it would take to sink her?
Which brings to mind the RINA engineers who authored the paper (Hackett is a
Senior Naval Architect and Bedford a former Chief Naval Architect from
Harland & Wolff) and their propensity to either disregard or overlook
evidence that would have a profound effect on their calculations.
>> >> .... They simply didn't think of it,
>
>> >This is an uwarranted assumption on your part. There is no way of
>> >knowing what they thought of. The men involved in the decision-making
>> >all died.
>>
>> Now you're getting downright pedantic (not that there's anything wrong
with
>> that {:oþ). All I meant was that since they didn't implement one of the
most
>> obvious (and documented) measures that would attract attention to their
>> plight, it is equally conceivable that they didn't consider all possible
>> means of slowing or stopping the sinking.
>
>And it is equally conceivable (and to me, much more plausible) that they
>would certainly have thought of commonplace, standard practice,
>known-even-to-landlubbers actions to keep the ship afloat; and with much
>greater knowledge of their immediate resources than you or I (or anyone
>else) has, rejected them as impractical and of lower priority than
>launching the boats.
This is the linch-pin of my case. There was a ship on the horizon. They
detailed a man to shoot off rockets to attract its attention, simultaneous
with launching the boats. They detailed a man to signal with the Morse lamp,
simultaneous with launching the boats. If they didn't consider using ten
minutes of one seaman's time to fetch something combustible and ignite it,
their intellects must have been operating in a highly degraded mode. Maybe
they did possess greater knowledge of their resources than you or I, but the
same intellectual paralysis that prevented such a simple act as a setting a
signal fire may easily have prevented them from thinking through all the
possible ways out of their plight.
Berg1912Ti
>am. I have broken and bent and heated and cooled *Titanic bulkhead steel*
>and I tell you that the properties are unaffected.
Tim, according to the United State's Patent office I am an inventor because I
hold patent rights. At the time I applied for the patent, everyone told me
that only a person with an engineering background could apply. Do you really
have to be a metallurgist to have a theory about how the Titanic sank?
In my readings about the Titanic I understand that the fire did damage the
bulkheads! The question is how much other damage did it do?
I wonder if anyone told Tom Edison that he didn't have enough education to
invent, motion pictures and the phonograph? We uneducated masses will keep
spouting out our theories and submitting our patents!
Tim since you are a metallurgist, I really do appreciate your opinion!!!! I
would however like to get a second and a third opinion from a couple other
people in your field. If they agree with you, then, I promise to be flexible
and change my opinion!
By the way Tim, I really do appreciate your post because it truly stimulates my
thought process!!!!! Take care!!!!!
Bob Botts
Might I suggest that this may be an opportune moment to educate the rest
of us about the issue, from your respective points of view. I am truly
interested.
Tim, could you repost your URLs, and for the benefit of the rest of us,
could I ask for a synopsis that we can all follow along with.
Bruce, although I'm decidedly in the camp of the guy with the hard
evidence (ie. the Big Piece), I admire your tencacity and hope that you
don't abandon your theory just yet. I do however think that you owe it
to yourself, to consider what might make your theory acceptable to a
scientist such as Tim.
Cheers... Bob (who hopes he's not overstepping his bounds)
Berg1912Ti
To me, this is a most enjoyable avocation and I will be happy to try to
sumarize my position.
Like so many of us, as a young child, I read, "A Night to Remember". I was
hooked! Then in 1981 my secretary gave me a copy of Logan Marshall's book. In
that work, I discovered that the Titanic had been on fire in one of the coal
bins because of spontaneous combustion.
In 1996 I edited and abridged Marshall's work and I stressed that I thought the
fire may have been a major factor in the demise of the Titanic. Basically my
theory was that the "Titanic could have survived the iceberg if it were not for
the fire and the Titanic could have survived the fire if it were not for
iceberg. The two in congruence worked to destroy the Titanic--was my theory.
I admit that my only expertise is having taken metal shop in the 8th grade and
watching the man at Summer-camp shoe the horses. In both
cases the steel was heated to a terribly high temperature and then pounded like
he-- and then cooled down.
The molecules were racing and then they slowed down! It seemed to me that
this was exactly what happened to the Titanic. I was surprised when I watched
"The Discovery Channel", that the fire on the Titanic was never mentioned. In
their quest to find out why the ship sank they came up with theories, but the
fire was left out of the equation.
It is my understanding (others have told me) that the fire on the Titanic is
now being mentioned by the Disovery Channel.
Bob, this news group is so fantastic!!! People with ideas like mine can now be
heard, rather than stomped out. Was it Mill who said that, "The minority
opinion of today, may be the majority opinion of tomorrow"?
I propose that The Discovery Channel build a model to scale of the coal bins in
their relationship to the Titanic's hull . Then I propose that they burn coal
in this bin for about six days while the outer bottom is in 28f ocean water
and then apply the amount of pressure that it is estimated that the Titanic
received from the iceberg to the exterior hull.
Perhaps this can be done by computer simulation?
Then I propose that they do the same experiment without the coal fire. Isn't
this the scientific way? A theory,-- gather data, and then come to a
conclusion!
Bob, as far as Tim is concerned, I respect his credentials! (I really do!)
But I respect all, doctors too! I guess, I just want a second and a third
opinion!
My investigation about the Titanic has verified that some damage was done to
the interior of the ship by the fire. This is from sources other than Logan
Marshall. I guess I just want to see an Empirical test as to whether the fire
may have been a fatal component.
If the empirical tests verify Tim's points, then I promise never to question
his judgements on fire and steel again!!!!!!!! :)
Bob, I hope I explained my points and I look forward to Tim giving his side!!!!
Take care!!!
george_...@my-dejanews.com
"Tom Pappas" <t...@pcslink.com> wrote:
> >In addition to the inaccurate time assigned to the bulkhead collapse by the
> >RINA people,
>
> Didn't the 12:55 come from Barrett's testimony!
Hello, Tom.
Barrett estimated that the bulkhead collapse occurred at 1:10 am. George
believes it was slightly later than this because Barrett then made a beeline
for the boat deck, got into boat #13 ahead of two or three other people, and
the boat was then promptly lowered away (at 1:35 am.)
> Does George have a time line he could share with us?
George just has hundreds and hundreds of file cards with notes and sources
written on them that he once hoped to convert into a book. Those cards have
been gathering dust for years. <grin>
>If not, would he like help computing one?
George needs all the help he can get. <grin>
Seriously, though, he isn't able to devote a lot of time to Titanic research
at the moment, but he says he'll be happy to relay to you any pertinent
information he runs across that he feels might contribute to the construction
of such a timeline. He feels that your technical expertise better qualifies
you to formulate theories as to *why* the sinking occurred the way survivors
said it did.
William J. Leary Jr.
Berg1912Ti <berg1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990505022659...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> My investigation about the Titanic has verified that some damage was done
to
> the interior of the ship by the fire.
What was the damage, and who said so? If you've explicitly said this
before, I (and from the comments I'm reading others) missed it.
I, too, have heard comments about fire damage. But in each case when I've
tracked them down to a primary source, it isn't anyone who actuallly SAW the
damage. Rather, they've all been people who've concluded that there must
have been damage under the circumstances.
> If the empirical tests verify Tim's points, then I promise never to
question
> his judgements on fire and steel again!!!!!!!! :)
Actually, if I've read him correctly, I believe Tim's has been saying that
he DID the empirical tests you're talking about on actual Titanic steel.
- Bill
Berg1912Ti
Conspiracy", I do however find that their quotes in order to prove their theory
are correct. From page # 214-216 the coal fire is discussed in great detail.
They report on the British Inquiry--
...."The reporters scribbled furiously. Hendrickson saw out the day in the
witness-box, describing how he had brushed and rubbed black oil over the
scorched and warped bulkhead in bunker six 'to give it an ordinary
appearance'.....(Page 216 "The Titanic Conspiracy" ISBN 0-8065-1890-1.
Copyright 1995.
William I have read numerous other examples of the damage, but this is the
first one I can report to you instantaneously! Many web sites tell of the
bulkhead damage. That is why I have been so surprised that most Titanic
narratives have ignored it. It is my understanding that the British Inquiry
in1912 did not ignore the fire. After reading the excellent book by Tom Kuntz
about the American hearings, I think that Senator Smith's investigation did
ignore the fire. Why? I don't know!!
On your second question--
>Actually, if I've read him correctly, I believe Tim's has been saying
that
>he DID the empirical tests you're talking about on actual Titanic steel.
It is my understanding that Tim did tests on the steel, but not an exact
simulation of the conditions that existed on the Titanic. If he has done those
tests, then I would like to have the scientific results so that they could be
verified by a second and then a third expert
William to me this is so exciting, because there is the possibility that we may
discover the fire did play a major role in the demise of the Titanic. We may
discover that the fire did not play a major role too, but if that is proven, I
promise to be less verbose on this wonderful NG!! :)
William thanks for your input!! Take care!!!
Doug Urquhart
I can't help noticing that the 'fire' discussion is drifting into the
realms of belief rather than verifiable facts.
Nasty dangerous things, beliefs......
Let's go back to first principals:
Tim Foecke asserts that the bulkhead steel was not affected by the fire.
He says this not because he 'believes' it, but because it is consistent
with his observations, and with the body of knowledge that comprises
metallurgy. If necessary, I'm sure he can point us at the data to back
up his assertion.
You, on the other hand, assert that Tim is mistaken - the bulkhead steel
was affected. You may be right, but you do need to provide some kind of
evidence to back up your claim. Since we're talking hard science here,
no amount of anecdotal evidence, hearsay, legend, gut-feel, common-sense
etc will do. (Nor will quoting from someone else's gut-feel,
common-sense etc.)
May I suggest the following line of inquiry (I'm too lazy to do it
myself). I suspect the following information is out there somewhere:
Start by establishing how hot the bulkhead could have been.
1. What is the maximum temperature at the heart of deep-seated
coal fire (note, not the temperature in a forge, which is
supplied with oxygen and probably much hotter).
Note this as your 'worst-case' temperature.
2. What is the likely temperature of a steel wall, in
contact with the core of the fire (worst case), thermally
bonded to a massive steel structure which in turn is
immersed in water.
Note this as your 'best-case' temperature.
3. An eye witness described the bulkhead as 'cherry red'.
There are tables relating colour to temperature.
Does the figure correspond to the figure you get in section 2?
(If not, no big deal - witnesses are notoriously unreliable)
Now see if the temperature would have affected the steel
4. What was the type of steel used in Titanic's bulkhead?
5. Would it have been affected by heating to your 'best case'
temperature?
6. Would it have been affected by heating to your 'worst-case'
temperature?
7. If the answer to either 5 or 6 is true, what would
be the subsequent effect of violent cooling in seawater?
If you answer the above questions, you should be in a position to prove
or disprove your assertion, I would have thought.
--
Regards
Doug Urquhart
<email address mis-spelled to avoid spam>
Tom Pappas
research
>at the moment, but he says he'll be happy to relay to you any pertinent
>information he runs across that he feels might contribute to the
construction
>of such a timeline. He feels that your technical expertise better
qualifies
>you to formulate theories as to *why* the sinking occurred the way
survivors
>said it did.
Offer gratefully accepted. :o}
James Alexander Carlisle
Bruce Ismay shouted to him " Why don't you come with us Carlisle?" Carlisle's
reply was" I have not been asked"
Yours
James Alexander Carlisle
Douglas King wrote:
> > But remember that once the first five compartments filled up, the ship
> > STOPPED sinking for almost an hour.
>
> I don't know where you are getting this from. From what I have read of
> the RINA report, this is not true. And other accounts distinctly mention
> that the ship's sinking accelerated as she went down by the head.
>
> > ... There were men working in #5 until the
> > water roared in from #6. And even then it might not have been too late.
> >
> > > At the time this descision would have to be made, there were no
> > >gurantees a ship was close, the Carpathia turned out to be 4 (well, 3 1/2)
> > >hours away in the end. The only option was to concentrate on getting the
> > >boats away.
> >
> > There's no reason they couldn't do both.
>
> There was a rather limited amount of trained manpower.
>
> > .... They simply didn't think of it,
> > just as no one thought to light a fire on deck - a universally recognized
> > distress signal.
>
> This is an uwarranted assumption on your part. There is no way of
> knowing what they thought of. The men involved in the decision-making
> all died.
>
> Regards- Doug King
Berg1912Ti
I'm a little puzzled by your statement,
>realms of belief rather than verifiable facts.
Verifiable Facts.
1. The Titanic was on fire because the coal had spontaneously combusted in one
of the bins.
2. The fire burned for over a week.
3. The coal bin was built to store coal, not to house burning coal.
4. According to sources I have read, (and quoted) at the British Enquiry in
1912 it was brought out that the coal fire had damaged one of the bulkheads. (
These were witnesses, yet Tim disagrees.)
With the previous facts, I suggested that an experiment be set up to duplicate
what happened on the Titanic. Then we can see who is right.
>Nasty dangerous things, beliefs.
I don't agree with that statement Doug! Some beliefs are dangerous and some
are beneficial. In order to come up with a theory you need a belief and then
you have to be open minded enough to reject your belief if the facts go against
you.
In this case, Tim believes that the fire would not compromise the ship, yet it
is my understanding that witnesses in 1912 said that the fire did damage the
bulkhead. Who should we believe-- a metallurgist of today, or witnesses who
were at the scene in 1912?
Thanks for your question!!! I'm really enjoying this discussion!!!!! Take
Mark E. Taylor
In article <19990504201651...@ng07.aol.com>, Berg1912Ti
<berg1...@aol.com> wrote:
Tim wrote:
> >Exactly. You cannot understand because you are not a metallurgist. I
> >am. I have broken and bent and heated and cooled *Titanic bulkhead steel*
> >and I tell you that the properties are unaffected.
You wrote:
> Tim, according to the United State's Patent office I am an inventor because I
> hold patent rights. At the time I applied for the patent, everyone told me
> that only a person with an engineering background could apply. Do you really
> have to be a metallurgist to have a theory about how the Titanic sank?
That is silly and people who comment that only engineers can apply for
US patents are truly uninformed. Now you do not have to be a
metallurgist to put forth theories on metal, but it would not hurt. A
person, even an amateur, who has studied the properties of metal is
more informed than someone making idle speculation.
Does this mean putting forth a theory, such as yours, is wrong? No
however in putting them forth you immediately open them up to scrutiny
and examination. If you do not have any data to support your theory,
then it is simply unproven. And people rightly can ask what evidence
you have to support it.
> I wonder if anyone told Tom Edison that he didn't have enough education to
> invent, motion pictures and the phonograph? We uneducated masses will keep
> spouting out our theories and submitting our patents!
Thomas Edison was a genius and he tested what he thought would work.
He did not go around making claims that he could not try to verify on
his own accord or by others. Did he face skepticism? Yes he did and
often as I recall. That is one thing inbuilt into the scientific (and
other) fields. If you put forth a theory, the burden is up to you to
prove whether it is accurate or not. Then others replicate your
experiment to see if it is valid. Where is your scientific data that
supports your theory? Even you say you cannot prove it making your
theory nothing more than idle speculation at best.
>
> Tim since you are a metallurgist, I really do appreciate your opinion!!!! I
> would however like to get a second and a third opinion from a couple other
> people in your field. If they agree with you, then, I promise to be flexible
> and change my opinion!
That is good. In fact I expect others will do it anyway (perform their
own tests). Perhaps other questions will be raised. No one scientific
study alone is sufficient. You need a few to make sure the results are
consistent and verifiable. That is why the people who claimed cold
fusion years back could not claim the big prize. No one could
replicate and prove it anywhere else.
Mark E. Taylor
Netwatch
www.internetfraudwatch.com
email:netw...@pobox.com.co
Tim Foecke
>
> Tim since you are a metallurgist, I really do appreciate your opinion!!!! I
> would however like to get a second and a third opinion from a couple other
> people in your field. If they agree with you, then, I promise to be flexible
> and change my opinion!
>
No sweat. I will try to arrange with Tulloch to make materials available
to qualified metallurgists if you agree to pay for it. This seems only
right, since you are the only one here who is asking for two second
opinions. And machine shop and testing time ain't cheap. I cost more
than $250 an hour just for my time.
Our results are written up, undergoing internal NIST review, and will
undergo peer review before being published in Metallurgical and Materials
Transactions A, a leading metallurgical journal. Timeline is about a year
or so. This journal is notoriously a bit slow.
--
Tim Foecke, PhD
National Institute of Standards and Technology
http://nano.nist.gov
______________________________________________
Tim Foecke
> I know tha I am not the person that this is directed to but in the
> course of my hobby of restoring old cars, I often heat various metals to
> aid in fabrication. With ferrous based alloys (steel), as soon as the
> metal begins to "glow," it is easy to change/adjust the shape. Also, if
> cooled too quickly, (room temperature water), it becomes very brittle
> and can crack/fail easily. I just think that "cherry red" metal
> suddenly subjected to 28 degree water would have an adverse effect on
> structural integrity.
>
>
You have to take into account several factors. The temperature was not
high enough (if we go by color and pyrometry for iron) to induce the type
of transition you are talking about (a martensitic transformation). Also,
the cooling was either 1) relatively slow during the process of
extinguishing the fire or 2) a single sided quench by rising sea water
while still in contact with burning coal, depending on the scenario you
believe. Neither is nearly as severe a quench as dunking a thin section
of metal in a bucket of cold water. Remember the bulkhead is 5/8" thick,
and it takes a while to get the heat out of it (seconds, rather than
milliseconds).
BTW, in all cases I am speaking of the properties of the steel after
heating to cherry red for 4 days and then cooling down, not while hot.
Tim Foecke
<t...@pcslink.com> wrote:
> >1. It was two feet above the floor in boiler room number five near the
> >forward bulkhead, right where Fireman Barrett said it was.
>
>
> It appeared to be an inch or so wide and maybe a foot long. Just about the
> right area for a "fire hose" volume of water - am I close? Can you tell us
> how they determined its precise location?
Transiting down the side of the ship from the deck, counting plates and
looking at the detailed set of blueprints brought by Livingstone and not
available to the public.
>
> >2. You can heat the bulkhead plate with a coal fire to the observed
> >"cherry red" temperature till the cows come home and NOT affect it's
> >fracture properties appreciably nor its strength.
>
>
> What range of temperature is cherry red, and how hot does the metal have to
> get before its strength is affected?
I mean the cold properties after heating. I have to look at my notes for
cherry red. Likely 750 to 800 degrees C, but that is a foggy memory.
>
> >3. We modeled the effect of the fire on applying thermal expansion
> >stresses on the rivets and joints, and it applies a stress less than 1/10
> >of the strength of either.
>
>
> What allowed the water to suddenly rush into Boiler Room #5 just before
> 1:00?
I don't know. And that phrase is the beginning of all knowledge.
Berg1912Ti
>however in putting them forth you immediately open them up to scrutiny
Amen!!!!!
I'm willing to endure the scrutiny. Perhaps I'm part masochist. :)
The question we have to ask, is--, is my theory reasonable? Being that
witnesses in 1912 said that the fire did damage the ship, I feel that there is
a very good chance that they were right in 1912.
Is it reasonable for most other texts since 1912 to have jetisoned information
about the fire and almost ignore it? This I can not understand?
>That is why the people who claimed cold
>fusion years back could not claim the big prize
Fleishman claimed cold fusion, he didn't say that he had a theory that he
wanted to test. I am not claiming that I'm correct,-- that the fire caused the
Titanic to sink. I do maintain that there is a reasonable chance that the fire
in the coal bin was a major factor in the sinking and I would hope that the
Discovery Channel or some other financially well endowed entity would test my
theory out!
Thanks again Mark!
Berg1912Ti
to the exhibits on the Queen Mary, Boston, and Florida.
I think that it would be great to duplicate the coal fire on the Titanic, at
one of the Exhibits.
Even a computer simulation would be wonderful. No Tim, I won't pay $250.00 an
hour for the project. Editors don't make that much money! :) Take care!!
JETman
>
> > I know tha I am not the person that this is directed to but in the
> > course of my hobby of restoring old cars, I often heat various metals to
> > aid in fabrication. With ferrous based alloys (steel), as soon as the
> > metal begins to "glow," it is easy to change/adjust the shape. Also, if
> > cooled too quickly, (room temperature water), it becomes very brittle
> > and can crack/fail easily. I just think that "cherry red" metal
> > suddenly subjected to 28 degree water would have an adverse effect on
> > structural integrity.
> >
> >
>
> You have to take into account several factors. The temperature was not
> high enough (if we go by color and pyrometry for iron) to induce the type
> of transition you are talking about (a martensitic transformation). Also,
> the cooling was either 1) relatively slow during the process of
> extinguishing the fire or 2) a single sided quench by rising sea water
> while still in contact with burning coal, depending on the scenario you
> believe. Neither is nearly as severe a quench as dunking a thin section
> of metal in a bucket of cold water. Remember the bulkhead is 5/8" thick,
> and it takes a while to get the heat out of it (seconds, rather than
> milliseconds).
I am not aware of the specifics of the fire but would like to offer the
following comments on the above:
1. A fire that has burned for a week would tend to dissapate heat in a
larger area than the location of the fire. A result of this would be
distorting a portion of the structure which in turn would increase
unassociated pre-loading of the structure itself. Any additional
pre-loading tends to weaken the basic structure.
>
> BTW, in all cases I am speaking of the properties of the steel after
> heating to cherry red for 4 days and then cooling down, not while hot.
2. I would submit that the real answers lie in performing a scale model
test under the best documented scenario that existed in the Titanic.
One final comment. In the over forty years that I have worked for a
living, my experience is of practicality rather than theoretical.
Conditions/reactions in a laboratory controlled environment are often
very different than in "field" environments. My "gut" feeling is that
Mr. Caplan's theory has merit and merits further consideration.
>
> --
> Tim Foecke, PhD
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> http://nano.nist.gov
> ______________________________________________
--
Regards,
JT, Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
(the kind in a can!)
Saturday, May 1, 1999 at Auditorium Shores on Town Lake!
Replace the “*” with an “s“ when replying!
Tom Pappas
>> 1:00?
>
>I don't know. And that phrase is the beginning of all knowledge.
I asked the question in jest. Your simulation of the fire on the bulkhead
material is convincing. Is there the slightest chance of sending an ROV
inside #5 or #6 - like down through the funnel/ventilator shaft? If the
bulkhead can be visualized as intact (and the door blown out?!), this
information would lay to rest the "fire weakened bulkhead" idea once and for
all.
A broken bulkhead, of course, would tend to suggest that mechanical forces
overloaded the structure, although this might also have occurred when the
ship impacted the bottom - the hole in the starboard side is ample
demonstration of the magnitude of forces in play.
William J. Leary Jr.
> William,
Bill. I sign my messages "Bill."
> ((..omitted.)) quotes in order to prove their theory are correct.
Yes, we like quotes. Provided the quotes are in-context and complete then
it really doesn't much matter where they're recorded.
> ((..omitted..))
> describing how he had brushed and rubbed black oil over the scorched and
> warped bulkhead in bunker six 'to give it an ordinary appearance'
Now that you quote it, I have read this one. And I'd always assumed that he
was talking about one of the enclosure bulkheads (much thinner steel) than
the watertight bulkhead.
> ((..omitted..)) Many web sites tell of the bulkhead damage.
Sure. Usually attributed to the hull getting impacted by the burg at the
junction point of the hull and the bulkhead, thus compromising the mounting
between the bulkhead and the hull.
> ((..omitted..))
> It is my understanding that Tim did tests on the steel, but not an exact
> simulation of the conditions that existed on the Titanic.
Short of building another ship, or at least a representation of the
bulkhead, hull and bunker walls and filling it up with burning coal, I
don't see how that can be done. Again, if I understand Tim's tests and
results correctly, they are a sufficient set of tests to draw conclusions
from. However, I'll be interested to see what Tim has to say about this.
Perhaps I missed something you caught.
- Bill
Cal Haines
> about the American hearings, I think that Senator Smith's investigation
did
> ignore the fire.
Bruce,
I'm pretty disappointed with Kuntz's book. It certainly is not a complete
copy of the testimony at the hearing. Check the list of witnesses,
beginning on page 560, to see how many witnesses are NOT included in the
book (it looks as if only about half of the witnesses' testimony is in the
book). I am particularly miffed by his failure to include the testimony of
Bowswain's Mate Albert Haines.
You may want to read the missing sections at the Titanic Inquiry Project:
http://www3.mwis.net/~breaktym/titanic.htm
Cal Haines
Berg1912Ti
that much out of the book. They must have really been verbose in 1912! Take
Berg1912Ti
The point that I was trying to make was that the fire did do damage to the
Titanic. Damage where people could see the proof. I have discussed over and
over again, why I feel because of the double bottom of the ship, the coal fire
was much more serious than most experts think.
>Short of building another ship, or at least a representation of the
>bulkhead, hull and bunker walls and filling it up with burning coal,
Right on!!! "A Representation of the bulkhead, hull and bunker walls and
filling it up with burning coal......" That would prove or disprove my
theory!!!!
Thanks Bill again for stimulating input!!
Cal Haines
news:s00Y2.1107$IE2....@news15.ispnews.com...
> >> What allowed the water to suddenly rush into Boiler Room #5 just before
> >> 1:00?
> inside #5 or #6 - like down through the funnel/ventilator shaft?
Tom,
I have wondered if a fiber-optic probe could be inserted through the gap or
the rivet holes (assuming there are any) to allow inspection of the space
inside. Maybe an inspection hole could be drilled to allow a tiny periscope
to be inserted.
I think it would also be interesting to do a high magnification inspection
of any empty rivet holes in the area. If a hole was elongated, that would
be indicate that the missing rivet might have been sheared off. If
depressed, the rivet may have failed in tension.
I have also wondered if it would be possible to push some type of scope down
the side, between the hull and the silt, and inspect some of the other gaps
imaged by Matthias' sonar. BTW, do you know if Matthias also scanned the
port side of the bow? Any gaps on the port side are most likely due to the
impact with the bottom and not the collision with the iceberg.
>... If the
> bulkhead can be visualized as intact (and the door blown out?!), ...
I didn't get a response from you in the thread "The Water Tight Doors".
What failure mode(s) are you theorizing for the door?
Cal
Berg1912Ti
>Mr. Caplan's theory has merit and merits further consideration.
Thank you JT!!!!!!!!!!! It has been a little LONELY here!!!!!!!!! It is great
to have some support!!!!!!!!!!! Take care!!!!!!!
Tim Foecke
> I asked the question in jest. Your simulation of the fire on the bulkhead
> material is convincing. Is there the slightest chance of sending an ROV
> inside #5 or #6 - like down through the funnel/ventilator shaft? If the
> bulkhead can be visualized as intact (and the door blown out?!), this
> information would lay to rest the "fire weakened bulkhead" idea once and for
> all.
That's wat baby T-Rex was supposed to do this summer, but due to some,
shall we say "interesting" technical interactions between T-rex, its
builders and Ocean Engineering, she didn't work out. She is slated to go
the next trip, whenever that is.
Douglas King
> >> Now you're getting downright pedantic (not that there's anything wrong with
> >> that {:oş). All I meant was that since they didn't implement one of the most
> >> obvious (and documented) measures that would attract attention to their
> >> plight, it is equally conceivable that they didn't consider all possible
> >> means of slowing or stopping the sinking.
And my point remains that we do not know what they considered. There is
no record of conversations between Smith, Wilde, Murdoch, Bell, etc. Nor
is there a record of the orders given.
> This is the linch-pin of my case. There was a ship on the horizon. They
> detailed a man to shoot off rockets to attract its attention, simultaneous
> with launching the boats. They detailed a man to signal with the Morse lamp,
> simultaneous with launching the boats. If they didn't consider using ten
> minutes of one seaman's time to fetch something combustible and ignite it,
> their intellects must have been operating in a highly degraded mode.
And this is (one more time) an unwarranted assumption on your part. You
have zero evidence in recorded testimony or observation.
Two hours and forty minutes is not an unlimited length of time.
Furthermore, as that time goes on, resources get more scarce.
It's entirely possible that Smith or Wilde *did* order a seaman to burn
something up on the compass tower or the roof of officers quarters, but
that the order was impossible to carry out. Or that the order *was*
carried out and nobody observed & remembered it, and no record of it is
in the survivors testimony (although it seems likely somebody would have
noticed).
It is exactly the same as Lightoller's orders (which he have knowledge
of only by an incredible chance, ie that he himself survived) to open
the aft gangway may or may not have been carried out. Why do you not say
"their intellects must have been operating in a highly degraded mode"
because they didn't load more passengers into the boats from lower
places on the ship? It's an obvious answer to not wanting to lower the
boats in an overloaded state...
Tim Foecke
>
> I am not aware of the specifics of the fire but would like to offer the
> following comments on the above:
>
> 1. A fire that has burned for a week would tend to dissapate heat in a
> larger area than the location of the fire. A result of this would be
> distorting a portion of the structure which in turn would increase
> unassociated pre-loading of the structure itself. Any additional
> pre-loading tends to weaken the basic structure.
>
>
The model considered the effect of a broad point source fire on the
bulkhead, and the resulting buckling/deflection from thermal expansion.
Also included are data on the changing mechanical properties with
temperature of the plate and rivets (the latter are estimated - we haven't
finished that test yet - lack of material). The region over which the
plate stays cherry red, even after a week, is surprisingly small. The
rest of the ship, in contact with the water, is quite an effective heat
sink. I think if the entire wall began to glow, we might have heard more
about it.
Douglas King
little bit further....
> >Tom Pappas wrote:
> >> I refer you to paragraph 4.12:
> >>
> >> [The bow has just submerged to C deck, at 12:40.] "With all compartments
> >> except No. 5 Boiler Room now full to the waterline the rate of sinking will
> >> be significantly reduced as it is now dependent on the water spreading along
> >> the flooded decks and percolating below through doors, stairways and similar
> >> openings."
> Douglas King wrote...>
> >Okay, riddle me this: will those doors, stairways, and similar openings
> >add up to more or less than the original 12 square feet of leak? How
> >about all the portholes which are now submerged?
Tom Pappas wrote:>
> I don't see how this matters. If an open porthole (hatch, whatever) has the
> same pressure on both sides of it, there will be no flow. So the area is of
> no consequence.
Did the RINA report say that the water pressure inside and outside the
hull would be equalized?
No.
Did they say the rate of inflow was reduced?
Yes.
Please note the difference in terminology.
> >Note also- "rate of sinking significantly reduced" is NOT the same as
> >"will now float indefinitely" or "the ship STOPPED sinking for almost an
> >hour." Semantics, y'know.
>
> I take the phrase "significantly reduced" to be interchangeable with "within
> the capacity of the ship's pumps." My question stands: where was the water
> going between the time C deck was awash and #5 flooded (I hope George's
> timeline produces a partial answer)?
You unwittingly wrote the answer yourself- "C Deck was awash"
Was C Deck watertight? No.
Nor were lower decks E and D, which must have also been awash, since
water flows downhill.
If there is water in a compartment on C, D, or E Deck, will it flow into
the next compartment? Yes.
Is this consistent with the RINA reports wording of "water percolating
through doors and hatches?" Yes.
> >> From this time until the door/bulkhead allowed #5 to flood (near 1:00),
> >> water must have been coming into the ship through the abovementioned
> >> openings. Where did it go? Not into the peak tank through #6 - they were
> >> full to the waterline. So it must have been leaking into #5.
*And* interior compartments on the four decks above #5.
I would be willing to believe that the rate of sinking slowed down as #6
and forward compartments filled up. I do not believe that the ship
reached equilibrium and stopped sinking (or in the words of Lightoller,
"fetched up on her bulkheads"), nor that she would have floated
indefinitely had not the BR #5/#6 bulkhead burst. The survivors
testimony and subsequent analysis (including the RINA report, from what
I have read of it) do not indicate such a conclusion.
Doug Urquhart
>
> Verifiable Facts.
>
> 1. The Titanic was on fire because the coal had spontaneously
> combusted in one of the bins.
Probably.
> 2. The fire burned for over a week.
Probably.
> 3. The coal bin was built to store coal, not to house burning coal.
Arguably it could do both.
> 4. According to sources I have read, (and quoted) at the
> British Enquiry in 1912 it was brought out that the coal
fire had damaged one of the bulkheads.
<etc>
-------------------------------------------------
And here we have the nub of the matter.
My point was that 'believing' that the bulkhead was damaged
is not enough - it is necessary to provide some kind of proof.
Citing the beliefs of others (as you have done in 4, above) does not
constitute proof.
Now, how about my questions......
Berg1912Ti
>My point was that 'believing' that the bulkhead was damaged
>is not enough - it is necessary to provide some kind of proof.
>Citing the beliefs of others (as you have done in 4, above) does not
>constitute proof.
>
Doug, I wish I had a time-machine and I could go back to April of 1912. Until
then I will have to rely on the 1912 accounts and new data that is available
from the current explorations of the Titanic.
I've really enjoyed these chats, but it seems to
me, that we have covered just about everything. You may disagree with me and
that is the beauty of this NG--we can all have our opinions!!! Take care and
thanks for keeping things lively!!!
Bill Lambrukos
Titanic. Damage where people could see the proof. I have discussed over
and
over again, why I feel because of the double bottom of the ship, the coal
fire
was much more serious than most experts think.<<
I think the point you miss is that people saying there was a fire, the wall
was red, or they had to rub oil on it does NOT mean the steel was
compromised. There simply is nothing to prove the fire contributed to the
sinking. What you are doing is saying there is a big footprint you don't
recognize in the mud, so therefore it must be bigfoot !
Bill
Bill Lambrukos
witnesses in 1912 said that the fire did damage the ship, I feel that there
is
a very good chance that they were right in 1912.<<
I think people are repeatedly asking you what does this mean. Who said it,
what did they say, and what scientific evidence supports it? Someone saying
in 1912 the wall was "cherry red" does NOT prove the steel was compromised.
Someone in 1912 waying the wall was damaged, does not make it damaged,
somone in 1912 rubbing oil on the wall does not prove the wall was damaged.
Have you ever taken your car into a garage saying the something was broke,
and it turned out to be something else was wrong ? Just because you, or I,
said it was broke didn't mean it was broke. You are using people's
unsupported OPINIONS to attempt to prove a fact.
Bill
Mark E. Taylor
<berg1...@aol.com> wrote:
> I just can't understand why such a significant event on the Titanic has been
> glossed over by so many historians?
Well....probably because the coal fire in and of itself had nothing to
do with the Titanic hitting the iceberg and sinking. Remember the
examination of the whole tragedy was to determine what, where, how, and
why. No one believes that the coal fire caused the Titanic to hit the
iceberg. Nor does a majority opinion exist that the coal fire increased
the chances of the sinking once impacted with the berg.
I am not sure it has been glossed over as you imply it to be. Perhaps
underexamined in some respects but remember that in 1912 no one had the
scientific apparatus of today to perform the experiment to confirm or
deny such a theory. And it was not a major part of the inquiries either
although there is testimony on it.
With all the other scientific evidence we now have available, this
theory can be proven or disproven. So far it appears you 0 and Foeke 1.
Other scientists will either confirm his (Foeke's) analysis. Perhaps
some may find flaws or question the methodology (this is perfectly
normal in the scientific area).
So hopefully others will do the appropriate testing and lay to rest one
way or another the coal fire theory.
Dante Scott
<cal...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I'm pretty disappointed with Kuntz's book. [snip]...
>I am particularly miffed by his failure to include the testimony of
>Bowswain's Mate Albert Haines.
>
>Cal Haines
...Hmmmm, me thinks there might be a family connection here, eh?
Dante
AOL-IM:DanteScott
#ADDisneyland:Dante_Scott
ADD Code:ARp3 aO3 D20 FW2 nI k0 W0 M0
Dante Scott
Rob Ottmers
Hi everyone,
Follows are a few things that might help you concerning the
coal bunker fire.
On 5 May 1999 12:56:47 GMT, berg1...@aol.com (Berg1912Ti) wrote:
(omitted)...
>They report on the British Inquiry--
>...."The reporters scribbled furiously. Hendrickson saw out the day in the
>witness-box, describing how he had brushed and rubbed black oil over the
>scorched and warped bulkhead in bunker six 'to give it an ordinary
>appearance'.....(Page 216 "The Titanic Conspiracy" ISBN 0-8065-1890-1.
>Copyright 1995.
---------------------
Board of Trade Enquiry - Day 4
Testimony of Frederick Barrett - Leading Fireman.
Questioned by Mr. Thomas Lewis - British Seafarers's Union
2292. Now, with regard to the bunker, you have said this bunker
referred to just now was empty - the coal bunker? - Yes.
2293. Were there any other coal bunkers empty forward? - No.
2294. Was this the only one empty? - Yes.
2295. Had it been emptied in the usual way? - No.
2296. Why was it emptied? - My orders were to get it out as soon as
possible.
2297. When did you receive those orders? - Not very long after the
ship left Southampton.
2298. Was there anything wrong? - Yes.
2299. What- was wrong? - The bunker was a-fire.
2300. Shortly after you left Southampton -
The Commissioner: Now how is this relevant to this inquiry.
2301. Shortly after you left Southampton, I'll put another question or
two, and you will see why think it is relevant. (To the Witness.) How
long did it take them to work the coal out? - Saturday.
2302. The whole Saturday. What condition was the watertight bulkhead
in? - It was the idea to get the bunker out. The chief engineer, Mr.
Bell gave me orders: "Builder's men wanted to inspect that bulkhead."
2303. This bulkhead forms the side of the bunker.
2304. What was the condition of this bulkhead running through the
bunker? - It was damaged from the bottom.
2305. Badly damaged? - The bottom of the watertight compartment was
dinged aft and the other part was dinged forward.
2306. (The Commissioner.) What did you attribute that to? - The fire.
2307. Do you mean to say the firing of the coal would dinge the
bulkhead? - Yes.
2308. (Mr. Lewis.) This is the bulkhead between sections 5 and 6? -
Yes.
Questioned by the COMMISSIONER
2330. (The Commissioner.) You told us there was some fire in that
bunker? - Yes.
2331. Soon after you left port? - Yes.
2332. Is it a very uncommon thing for fire to get into a coal bunker
in that way? - It is not an uncommon thing.
2333. It happens sometimes? - Yes.
2334. I suppose the proper order is to have the actual bunker emptied
as soon as possible? - Yes.
2335. And, therefore, that was all right? - Yes.
2336. Did the fact that there was fire in that bunker in any way
conduce to the collision as far as you know? Had it anything to do
with it? - I could not say that.
2337. Do you think it had? Do you think that the fire had anything to
do with this disaster? - That would be hard to say, my Lord.
The Commissioner: Very well; perhaps I am asking you a riddle.
Examined by MR. LAING.
2338. Did you work out that bunker yourself? - I was in charge. There
were between 8 and 10 men doing it.
2339. Was it fire or only heat? - It was fire.
2340. Did you play upon it? - The hose was going all the time.
2341. And did they get it out by the Saturday? - Yes.
2342. Cleared all out? - Yes.
2343. I want to ask you about this bunker, just a question or two.
When you saw the water coming into the bunker in No. 5 section, did
you shut the bunker door? - Yes.
2344. The bunker door is not a watertight door? - No.
---------------------
Board of Trade Enquiry - Day 5
Testimony of Thomas Patrick Dillon - Trimmer
Questioned by Mr. Thomas Lewis - British Seafarers' Union
3936. Do you remember the fire in the bunker? - I remember working in
a bunker
3937. Do you remember the fire in a bunker? - Yes.
3938. Did you help to clear out the coal? - Yes.
3939. You were ordered to do so, I presume? - Yes.
3940. Would you call it a serious fire? - I do not know.
3941. Did it take some time to put it out? - Yes.
3942. Did you see the sides of the bunker after the coal was taken
out? - No.
3943. You did not see whether it was painted afterwards? - No.
--------------
Board of Trade Enquiry - Day 5
Testimony of Charles Hendrickson - Leading Fireman.
Questioned by Mr. Thomas Lewis - British Seafarers' Union.
5232. Do you remember a fire in a coal bunker on board this boat? -
Yes.
5233. Is it a common occurrence for fires to take place on boats? -
No.
5234. It is not common? - No.
5235. How long have you been on a White Star boat? - About five years.
5236. When did you last see a fire in a coal bunker? - I never saw one
before.
5237. It has been suggested that fires in a coal bunker are quite a
common occurrence, but you have been five years in the White Star line
and have not seen a fire in a coal bunker? - No.
5238. Did you help to get the coal out? - Yes.
5239. Did you hear when the fire commenced? - Yes, I heard it
commenced at Belfast.
5240. When did you start getting the coal out? - The first watch we
did from Southampton we started to get it out.
5241. How many days would that be after you left Belfast? - I do not
know when she left Belfast to the day.
5242. It would be two or three days, I suppose? - I should say so.
5243. Did it take much time to get the fire down? - It took us right
up to the Saturday to get it out.
5244. How long did it take to put the fire itself out? - The fire was
not out much before all the coal was out.
5245. The fire was not extinguished until you got the whole of the
coal out? - No. I finished the bunker out myself, me and three or four
men that were there. We worked everything out.
5246. The bulkhead forms part of the bunker - the side? - Yes, you
could see where the bulkhead had been red hot.
5247. You looked at the side after the coal had been taken out? - Yes.
5248. What condition was it in? - You could see where it had been red
hot; all the paint and everything was off. It was dented a bit.
5249. It was damaged, at any rate? - Yes, warped.
5250. Was much notice taken of it. Was any attempt made to do anything
with it? - I just brushed it off and got some black oil and rubbed
over it.
5251. To give it its ordinary appearance? - Yes.
5252. You are not a professional expert and would not be able to
express an opinion as to whether that had any effect on the collision?
- I could not say that.
-----------------------
BOT Enquiry - Day 12
Testimony of Charles Lightoller
Questioned by Mr. Clement Edwards.
14639. From Belfast you came to Southampton. On the journey did you
hear anything about a fire in the bulkhead between Section 5 and 6? -
I did not.
14640. Have you at any time heard anything about a fire? - In a coal
bunker?
14641. Yes. - No.
14642. In the ordinary course of things would a matter of that sort be
reported to you as an Officer? - No, not if it was slight, or I may
say unless it became serious.
14643. Would it be reported to the Captain? - Very probably.
14644. Whose particular duty would it be to see that any fire
occurring there was put out? - The Engineer's.
------------------
BOT Enquiry - Day 18
Testimony of Harold Sanderson
Questioned by Mr. Edwards
19630. I only want to refer you to two other rules. The first is Rule
248. It is on page 45, "Examination of Coal Bunkers." The respective
senior engineers of each watch, before going off duty, must go through
the coal bunkers, and note their condition on the log slate, and
should there be any signs of spontaneous combustion taking place, they
are at once to report same to the Chief Engineer, who is immediately
to notify the Commander. All coal should, as often as possible, be
worked out of the bunkers." We have had it in evidence that there was
a fire in one of the bunkers when the "Titanic" was coming over from
Belfast to Southampton? - Yes.
19631. Would a copy of the log of the "Titanic" be taken for the use
of the Company before she left Southampton? - The Engineers Log from
Belfast to Southampton?
19632. Yes? - I presume there would be one, but I do not remember
it. It is a very short trip, and perhaps the ordinary regulations
might not have been carried out on it.
19633. You cannot tell me whether there was any entry in the log as
to the fire? - I could not tell you; but I know that there was a
fire.
19634. When did you know that? - I heard it at this Enquiry first of
all. I then sent down to Southampton, and they said, "Yes, there was a
small fire."
The Commissioner: What are these questions directed to? Spontaneous
combustion in a coal bunker is by no means an unusual thing. Are you
suggesting that we are concerned in enquiring as to whether it was
entered in the log, or not?
Mr. Edwards: No, my Lord. With respect, that is not the point.
The Commissioner: What is the point?
Mr. Edwards: The point, with very great respect, is this--that the
part of the particular bulkhead which showed damage, according to the
evidence, was a bulkhead which stood in the bunker where there was
evidence that a fire had existed continuously on the journey from
Belfast to Southampton, and even subsequently; and that the coal had
to be taken out down to a certain level and black paint put on so as
to hide whatever marks there might be, or the damage caused by the
fire. It would be a matter, of course, for your Lordship's
consideration as to whether---
The Commissioner: Do let us confine ourselves to the real serious
issues of this Enquiry. That fire in the bunker has nothing to do with
it.
Mr. Edwards: With very great respect, my Lord, I should have thought
it was.
The Commissioner: I differ from you there entirely.
Mr. Edwards: With very great respect, I would suggest that it was a
little premature for your Lordship to say this until after you had
heard the expert builders, and perhaps other experts as to what is
calculated to be the damage done by a continuous fire.
The Commissioner: Will you tell me what the evidence hitherto with
respect to this bunker is?
Mr. Edwards: Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner: What is it? That there was a fire in this bunker
between Belfast and Southampton; that the coal was worked out; that
some dent or dinge was observed (so one Witness says) in the wall of
the boiler. Is there anything else?
Mr. Edwards: Yes my Lord.
The Commissioner: What is it?
Mr. Edwards: That in order to get the hose through to work upon this
fire a hole or holes had to be bored through the bulkhead.
The Attorney-General: There is no evidence of that.
The Commissioner: Who is it that says that?
The Attorney-General: I have never heard that.
Mr. Edwards: Barrett, I think, is the Witness.
The Commissioner: Will you refer me to the Question and Answer?
Sir Robert Finlay: There is nothing of the kind.
Mr. Roche: I think your Lordship will find the evidence that my
friend is talking about on page 70.
The Commissioner: Will you read it?
Mr. Roche: It is in answer to a question by myself. I think it is
with reference to the same bunker, No. 5. It is Question 2249: "Now I
want to ask you one question about the hole in this bunker you have
described to my Lord."
The Commissioner: He must have said something previously to this.
Mr. Roche: Yes, my Lord. He had said fairly early in
examination-in-chief that there was a hole in the bunker after the
accident.
The Commissioner: After what accident?
Mr. Roche: After the accident with the ice--after the collision with
the iceberg.
The Commissioner: Do you mean a hole knocked through the ship's side
by the iceberg?
Mr. Roche: Yes, my Lord, that is Barrett's evidence.
The Commissioner: That is not the hole Mr. Edwards is talking about.
Mr. Roche: That is the evidence of Barrett. That is what my friend is
thinking of.
Mr. Edwards: Allow me to say, my Lord, that I had this so definitely
in my mind when I went over the "Olympic" at the inspection that I
made special enquiries as to the position where this hole was supposed
to have been made.
The Commissioner: Of whom did you enquire?
Mr. Edwards: Of two officers.
The Commissioner: Two officers of the Olympic?
Mr. Edwards: Yes.
The Commissioner: What did they know about it?
Mr. Edwards: It so happened, my Lord, that two of the men employed by
the White Star in helping to clear out the coal had also been employed
on the "Olympic," and had conversed with the officers on the subject.
The Commissioner: Do you know their names?
Mr. Edwards: The officers' names? No, I do not, my Lord.
The Commissioner: Do you know the names of the firemen?
Mr. Edwards: Yes, my Lord, the trimmers.
The Commissioner: What are their names?
Mr. Edwards: With very great respect, my Lord, unless the man is
called here as a witness---
The Commissioner: Can you give me their names?
Mr. Edwards: Yes my Lord.
The Commissioner: Then do so.
Mr. Edwards: They shall be supplied to your Lordship.
The Commissioner: Do so please.
Mr. Edwards: Very well then.
The Commissioner: What are their names? You seem at all events to be
mistaken in supposing that any evidence has been given at this Enquiry
of a hole in the wall of that bunker except possibly the hole knocked
in it by the ice--which would be the skin of the ship. If you think it
worth while pursuing it, by all means do so.
19635. (Mr. Edwards - To the Witness.) I was only going to ask one
short question upon it--as to whether the fire in that bunker had been
reported to you independently of anything which might possibly appear
in the log? - I have no doubt it was reported to the Superintendent
at Southampton. It would not have come to my knowledge unless it was
important.
--------------------
BOT Enquiry - Day 24
Comments
Mr. Edwards: That is so, my Lord. There is one point I ought to clear
up. I inadvertently, I am afraid, rather misled the Court the other
day. In the mass of evidence it is a little difficult to tell what has
come formally before the Court and what has come before me in another
form, and I did say that Barrett in his evidence, as far as I
remember, had spoken about a hole being bored in a watertight
compartment between sections 5 and 6. That was not given in evidence.
I have caused very careful enquiries to be made, and even supposing
the statement to be correct, I am given to understand it would not in
the least degree interfere with or detract from the strength of that
bulkhead as affected by the fire.
The Commissioner: Very well. Then, in any event, it becomes
immaterial.
Mr. Edwards: Yes.
---------------------
BOT Enquiry - Day 25
Testimony of Maurice Clarke - BOT Assistant Emigration Officer -
Southampton.
Questioned by Mr. Scanlan
24119. Was there any report made to you about a fire having taken
place in the bunker in Section 5? - No.
24120. In the ordinary case ought such a report to have been made to
you if there was a serious fire before the ship sailed? - Yes, if it
was a serious fire it ought to have been reported to me.
24121. If it was sufficiently serious for it to be reported - if it
was regarded as so serious by the officer that it ought to be reported
to the makers, would it, in your view, be sufficiently serious for a
report to be made to you? - Hardly, it is not an uncommon thing to
have these small fires in the bunkers.
------------------
Regards,,
Rob
Respond via Email to: brea...@mwis.net
Berg1912Ti
Berg1912Ti
I just can't understand why such a significant event on the Titanic has been
glossed over by so many historians?
Berg1912Ti
subjective score?
The information posted by Rob from the 1912 British Enquiries should in my
opinion be worth at least 1 point on my side. That is just my subjective
opinion!
Please read Rob's post carefully and tell me if you agree with me that the
facts brought out in 1912 by first hand participants help support my theory.
The fire did damage the metal and weaken the bulkhead!
Mark, you say--
>Nor does a majority opinion exist that the coal fire increased
>the chances of the sinking once impacted with the berg.
I know that my opinion is in the minority, but like I posted yesterday quoting
Mill, "THE MAJORITY OPINION OF TODAY MAY BE THE MINORITY OPINION OF TOMORROW".
Tim may be right, or I may be right, and we have to dig until we find out the
truth!
>So hopefully others will do the appropriate testing and lay to rest one
>way or another the coal fire theory.
>
I sure hope so!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Mark!!!
george_...@my-dejanews.com
In reference to a revised timeline of the sinking, I wrote:
>3. When boat #4 was launched from A deck at 1:55 am, the forward end of A
>deck was still 20 feet above the ocean's surface. (Ryerson.)
I'd like to amend my statement a bit. George tells me that the generally
accepted time for the launch of boat #4 is 1:50 am, not 1:55 am.
He's also come up with another tidbit from Mrs. Ryerson's testimony at the
1915 limitation of liability hearings. When boat #4 reached the water, Mrs.
Ryerson noticed that many C deck portholes near the lifeboat were open and
that sea water was washing into them. Shortly thereafter the square windows
on B deck had descended to sea level and the ocean began pouring into them.
Mrs. Ryerson described how eerie it was to be able to look through these
windows and see furniture etc. in the rooms deep inside the brightly-lit
ship.
Sincerely,
Patricia Behe
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
William J. Leary Jr.
> Please read Rob's post carefully and tell me if you agree with me that the
> facts brought out in 1912 by first hand participants help support my
theory.
> The fire did damage the metal and weaken the bulkhead!
If the testimony it to be believed (no real reason not to) and they're in
fact talking about the water tight bulkhead (the examiners keep picking away
trying to make sure) then the most you can say is that there was some
evidence of warpage.
You can't support a claim of "damage the metal." At least not in the sense
you're implying with "damage" being equivalent to "compromised." On the
other hand, there was "damage" in the sense of things not being the way they
were designed and built.
You also can't use this testimony to prove "weakened" either. Even if
warped by heat, it might well retain all it's original mechanical
properties.
- Bill
William J. Leary Jr.
I said...
--> You can't support a claim of "damage the metal." At least not in the
sense
What I meant to way was...
--> You can't use this as proof of "damage the metal." At least not in the
sense
The point I was trying to make, and missed, is that the statements, if
accepted, prove only warpage, not damage or weakening. They DO appear to
support the idea that either or both occurred, but they don't actually PROVE
it.
- Bill
Berg1912Ti
>support the idea that either or both occurred, but they don't actually PROVE
it--it wouldn't be a theory? It would be a fact! Take care!!!
Doug Urquhart
The point I am trying to make is that beliefs, even if they come from
allegedly qualified witnesses, are nothing more than beliefs - they do
not constitute proof.
Let me give a non-Titanic example.
Last year, there was a serious train wreck in Germany; a high speed
train struck a bridge. There were eye witnesses to the event, and they
were interviewed by the media shortly after the crash.
To a man, they said that the cause of the crash was a car on the line.
In the words of the guy I heard on the radio 'There was a car on the
line, then the train came out of nowhere, hit the car, and came off the
track. The rest of the train jacknifed and hit the bridge, partially
demolishing it'. His story was backed-up by other witnesses.
I believed them.
In the forensic investigation made after the crash, it was found that
the train, in fact, had derailed a quarter of a mile before the bridge.
The carriages had jacknifed, hit the bridge, and as a result, a car had
fallen onto the track. The car was a victim, as it were, not the
culprit.
Now, do you see any parallels? The enquiry extracts {Thank you very much
for posting them, Rob] indicate that there was a belief at the time that
the bulkhead had been damaged (although it is far from clear how serious
the damage was). This in itself, is interesting, but does not constitute
proof.
Now, to recap my original questions:
1. How hot (worst case)
2. How hot (best case)
3. Hot enough to cause weakening?
Tim Foeke's experiments suggest that the answer to 3 is 'No'.
You 'believe' he is wrong.
If you want to 'prove' it, why not have a go at answering these
questions.
Berg1912Ti
free everyday because of what witnesses see. You cite the example-- >Last
year, there was a serious train wreck in Germany; a high speed
>train struck a bridge. There were eye witnesses to the event, and they
>were interviewed by the media shortly after the crash.
In the example you cite, there was a tremendous speed factor--the old hand is
quicker than the eye--but this is not what happened on the Titanic.
The witnesses had many days slowly watch the event take place!
Doug, you can always cite the exception, but as a rule first hand witnesses at
an event, are usually the most accurate witnesses.
Doug, after Rob's post of yesterday, I feel stronger than ever that my theory
may have validity and should be tested in the way I previously outlined! Take
care!!
Cal Haines
news:3731c2c9...@news.concentric.net...
> On Wed, 5 May 1999 11:59:28 -0700, "Cal Haines"
> <cal...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm pretty disappointed with Kuntz's book. [snip]...
> >I am particularly miffed by his failure to include the testimony of
> >Bowswain's Mate Albert Haines.
> >
> >Cal Haines
>
> ...Hmmmm, me thinks there might be a family connection here, eh?
>
>
> Dante
Hi Dante,
Re the family connection, if it can be established that Albert left the sea
and moved to Seattle, Washington in time to father a son Aubrey in 1914,
then he's my grandfather. Unfortunately, grandpa Albert was 25 in 1914 and
his whereabouts are pretty wall accounted for (no hint of seafaring days or
surviving such a momentous event in history). Still, its an interesting
coincidence that my grandfather's name is the same as a Titanic survivor!
Boswain's Mate Haines may well be a distant relative, my Dad's side of the
family comes from Wales.
Cal
Tim Foecke
> Follows are a few things that might help you concerning the
> coal bunker fire.
>
(hearing transcript deleted)
This is a very useful piece of information that I have not had firsthand
access to before. Thanks, Rob (no string of exclamation marks, sorry :^)
)
It appears that the heating did warp the wall to an extent, though the
magnitude is obscure ("small dent", "bulge"). Though it would appear that
the region that was heated to any significant amount was confined to a
(relatively) small region near the floor. It would be very useful to know
whether the bulge axis was horizontal or vertical (ie whether the
constraint top-to-bottom or side-to-side controlled things.
However, the effect of the warp on the metallurgy of the steel would have
not been significant. At most, the steel would have work hardened, and
become somewhat stronger. Of more interest would be the intergrity of the
joint at the bottom, and whether the distortion pulled open the seam or
compromised the rivets in some way (rivet quality again having a role in
this).
We'll just have to get in there and see, won't we?
Tim Foecke
>
> Doug, after Rob's post of yesterday, I feel stronger than ever that my theory
> may have validity and should be tested in the way I previously outlined! Take
> care!!
>
Fine, test it. But you still have not provided a mechanism. It was only
through the benevolence of my Division Chief that I was allowed to work on
this project, forensic and historical metallurgy falling within the scope
of NIST.
However, if you want to find an *UNBIASED* second and third opinion (ie
someone who has no agenda and doesn't give a damn how the chips fall), you
will have to pay for it. Be very suspicious of volunteers. I have had
many offers of help in this project, most from companies or consultants
wanting to build their resumes, or activists with an axe to grind. And
simply parroting "someone should do this" will never get the job done and
is simply an attempt at providing yourself with cover.
I have tried to present a balanced and open view of the data, and let
people interpret as they will. I am not married to any theory, and in
fact have changed course a couple of times in 3 years. I welcome
alternate interpretations of my observations, which are available to all.
But simply floating a theory that "feels right" with absolutely no proof
other than a convenient reading of a hearing transcript is useless.
Tim Foecke
Hey, this is entertainment television that is crammed into 2 hours. They
also "glossed over" (by this definition):
- the rudder size and shape issue
- the specifics of the slag problem in the rivets
- the rivet quality population distribution issue
- the rate sensitivity of the steel
- the damage control efforts
- the psychology of almost everything
- the collection of survivor testimony, and its analysis
- and on and on . . .
ALL of these have been addressed by our panel. But most are too
complicated or boring for the target audience.
Tim Foecke
>
> I am not expertly knowlegable regarding the specifics of the coal fire
> but am somewhat concerned that the laboratory may take precedence over
> the "field."
I love field observations, but you have to try to sort out the truth.
Most observations have been contradictory, and in the case of the damage
to the bulkhead, the critical parameters are cloudy (size, location and
orientation of the bulge, for example). I never discount field obs. I
try to jibe it with simulations, and don't always say "well, the fields
guys were confused"
JETman
>
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. SEND EMAIL TO ADDRESS IN SIG.
> In article <19990506003743...@ng38.aol.com>, Berg1912Ti
> <berg1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > glossed over by so many historians?
>
> do with the Titanic hitting the iceberg and sinking. Remember the
> examination of the whole tragedy was to determine what, where, how, and
> why. No one believes that the coal fire caused the Titanic to hit the
> the chances of the sinking once impacted with the berg.
The may not have been prevented by the failure of the bulkhead but it
certainly was hastened. No one can accertain the time factor involved
but taking into consideration prior to the bulkhead failure, flooding in
BR #5 and aft was under control.
>
> I am not sure it has been glossed over as you imply it to be. Perhaps
> underexamined in some respects but remember that in 1912 no one had the
> scientific apparatus of today to perform the experiment to confirm or
> deny such a theory. And it was not a major part of the inquiries either
> although there is testimony on it.
>
> With all the other scientific evidence we now have available, this
> theory can be proven or disproven. So far it appears you 0 and Foeke 1.
Not necessarily so. Often field events ultimately prevail over
laboratory test/analysis.
> Other scientists will either confirm his (Foeke's) analysis. Perhaps
> some may find flaws or question the methodology (this is perfectly
> normal in the scientific area).
>
> So hopefully others will do the appropriate testing and lay to rest one
> way or another the coal fire theory.
I agree on this point.
--
Regards,
JT, Austin, Texas - Home of the Annual Spamarama Festival
(the kind in a can!)
Saturday, May 1, 1999 at Auditorium Shores on Town Lake!
Replace the “*” with an “s“ when replying!
JETman
>
> Berg1912Ti <berg1...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990506024840...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> > Please read Rob's post carefully and tell me if you agree with me that the
> > facts brought out in 1912 by first hand participants help support my
> theory.
> > The fire did damage the metal and weaken the bulkhead!
>
> If the testimony it to be believed (no real reason not to) and they're in
> fact talking about the water tight bulkhead (the examiners keep picking away
> trying to make sure) then the most you can say is that there was some
> evidence of warpage.
>
> other hand, there was "damage" in the sense of things not being the way they
> were designed and built.
>
> You also can't use this testimony to prove "weakened" either. Even if
> warped by heat, it might well retain all it's original mechanical
> properties.
>
> - Bill
A change in the shape of a bearing mechanical structure can either be
(usually) weakened or (rarely) strengthened when change by outside
forces/environments.
Berg1912Ti
tests that you have done! I'm sure that I can give you and A++ in your
field!!! My only problem is that the only test, I'll believe is one that
duplicates structurally and to scale what happened on the Titanic during the
voyage in relationship to the coal bin and the fire there!!
I do not expect you to donate your valuable time to this project. I would wish
however that you would concede that the experiment that I propose may have
validity and that if done under laboratories with objective standards may be
able to answer the question about the fire.
>But simply floating a theory that "feels right" with absolutely no proof
>other than a convenient reading of a hearing transcript is useless.
>
Tim the hearing transcripts gave eye witnesses that said the fire did damage
the steel. I just want some mechanism to know if they were correct. My theory
is based on the fact that there was a coal fire of long duration.
That observers on the Titanic worked for many days trying to put the fire out.
When it was out, they covered up the warped metal with black grease. I would
say that I have enough facts to hypothesize!
Tim, I totally agree with you, that I do not want a company that would
artificially validate my ideas. Thanks for your help!!!!!!!!
Berg1912Ti
>access to before. Thanks, Rob
Tim, It was a first for me too!
James Alexander Carlisle
May I ask are the rivets in question from the hydraulic riveting or the
manual riveting.
As the Titanic was treble riveted for overlapping plates, with 1 inch rivets,
could you please define the rivet quality population distribution issue.
Yours
James Alexander Carlisle
Tim Foecke wrote:
> And to those who are wondering why Discovery "glossed over" the topic:
> Hey, this is entertainment television that is crammed into 2 hours. They
> also "glossed over" (by this definition):
>
> - the rudder size and shape issue
> - the specifics of the slag problem in the rivets
> - the rivet quality population distribution issue
> - the rate sensitivity of the steel
> - the damage control efforts
> - the psychology of almost everything
> - the collection of survivor testimony, and its analysis
> - and on and on . . .
>
> ALL of these have been addressed by our panel. But most are too
> complicated or boring for the target audience.
>
JETman
>
> And to those who are wondering why Discovery "glossed over" the topic:
> Hey, this is entertainment television that is crammed into 2 hours. They
> also "glossed over" (by this definition):
>
> - the rudder size and shape issue
> - the specifics of the slag problem in the rivets
> - the rivet quality population distribution issue
> - the rate sensitivity of the steel
> - the damage control efforts
> - the psychology of almost everything
> - the collection of survivor testimony, and its analysis
> - and on and on . . .
>
> ALL of these have been addressed by our panel. But most are too
> complicated or boring for the target audience.
>
>
One or the greatest challenges to "technical" types is translating a
long boring report into layman's terms. Unfortunately, our
colleges/universities promote the opposite in their instructional
methods as relates to writing/reporting.
You can see this everyday in the operations of large corporations and of
course, the "guvment!"
Sometimes I feel like I am fighting the lone effort for the term:
SIMPLIFY!!! Does anyone know how to anymore?????
About a year and a half ago, a procedure came across my desk that was
nearly thirty pages in length. When I reduced the same to two pages,
people were amazed. I really don't know why. . .
Tom Pappas
At last! A scientist I can talk to about the rudder.
My empirical feel for this is that swinging the ship faster (as opposed to
sooner) wouldn't have accomplished much except to relocate the collision
further aft. My basis for this conclusion is the fact that although the
ship's forward speed was 22+ knots, her speed perpendicular to that axis was
zero. So in order to miss the ice, she would have to be accelerated in the
transverse plane from zero to a speed sufficient to clear it in the time
available.
In sea trials, Titanic achieved a turning circle of 3850 feet at 20.5 knots,
which rate stabilized after she had moved forward some 2100 feet. The
perpendicular force required to turn a ship is produced by the pressure of
the water on the side of the hull, and can therefore be regarded as a
constant. Once the rudder has displaced the stern to the optimum angle, it
will turn at the same rate no matter how long it took to get it to that
angle. The only saving grace of turning faster would be that dividing the
inertia vector between forward and lateral motion would slow the vessel,
which might have mitigated the collision force.
And none of this accounts for latency in the steering engines, which was not
inconsiderable, given the gearing ratio necessary.
Berg1912Ti
>long boring report into layman's terms.
How true!!!
JETman
>
> >One or the greatest challenges to "technical" types is translating a
> >long boring report into layman's terms.
>
>
An excellent example of simplification of a complex cause/effect
scenario is a book, "The Electra Story," by Robert Serling, (Rod's
brother I believe).
Briefly, it describes the development of the Lockheed L-88, (Electra),
passenger airliner in the late 1950's and the subsequent crash of two
aircraft due to design flaws. It also documents the tracking down of
the cause and ultimate fix to a fine aircraft.
It is a relatively small book as well.
Tim Foecke
> >
> Tim the hearing transcripts gave eye witnesses that said the fire did damage
> the steel. I just want some mechanism to know if they were correct. My
theory
> is based on the fact that there was a coal fire of long duration.
> That observers on the Titanic worked for many days trying to put the
fire out.
> When it was out, they covered up the warped metal with black grease. I would
> say that I have enough facts to hypothesize!
Ah, but there you go with a convenient reading of the transcript. They
may have testified that the fire damaged the "steel", but since they
didn't test it nor look at it metallographically, what they meant was that
the fire damaged the "structure". What I have been saying is that the
fire did NOT damage the steel, but we simulated the fire's effect on the
*structure*, and found loads on the joints that would not have failed
them. As has been pointed out, this conflicts partially with the
observation of a wall buckle, which we did not see in the simulation. I'm
going back to overdrive the simulation and see how far we are from the
buckling condition. Since there are errors in the analysis due to
assumptions, I might be right on the hoary edge of a buckle. Will be
interesting to see.
Tim Foecke
<carl...@online.no> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> May I ask are the rivets in question from the hydraulic riveting or the
> manual riveting.
>
> As the Titanic was treble riveted for overlapping plates, with 1 inch rivets,
>
> could you please define the rivet quality population distribution issue.
>
> Yours
>
> James Alexander Carlisle
>
I have pictures of Olympic's underside showing her bottom lap joints were
double riveted, so I'm not sure about your observation. Queen Mary was
treble riveted.
The rivet quality population distribution issue I refer to applies to all
of the rivets. It has to do with how we simulate the strength of the
rivets, and how do we introduce the variability in strengths. Are there
weak seams in places where bad batches of rivets are installed en mass, or
are the bad rivets interspersed with the good? And what effect do these
two scenarios have on joint strengths and performance? That sort of
thing.
Tim Foecke
<t...@pcslink.com> wrote:
> >- the rudder size and shape issue
>
>
> At last! A scientist I can talk to about the rudder.
>
Sorry to disappint you Tom, but I didn't do the rudder analysis. Dick
Siloway and others did.
Berg1912Ti
I really appreciate this!!!!!!!!!
Berg1912Ti
quote!!! I was quoting another great particiapant on our NG!! Take care!!!
James Alexander Carlisle
Tim Foecke wrote:
> In article <3731D828...@online.no>, James Alexander Carlisle
> <carl...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sir,
> >
> > May I ask are the rivets in question from the hydraulic riveting or the
> > manual riveting.
> >
> > As the Titanic was treble riveted for overlapping plates, with 1 inch rivets,
> >
> > could you please define the rivet quality population distribution issue.
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > James Alexander Carlisle
> >
>
> I have pictures of Olympic's underside showing her bottom lap joints were
> double riveted, so I'm not sure about your observation. Queen Mary was
> treble riveted.
There are not observations. They are documented and were explained by one of the
Titanic riveters.
>
>
> The rivet quality population distribution issue I refer to applies to all
> of the rivets. It has to do with how we simulate the strength of the
> rivets, and how do we introduce the variability in strengths. Are there
> weak seams in places where bad batches of rivets are installed en mass,
Do you really expect me to believe that riveters would install bad rivets after
serving a 5 year apprenticeship plus trade time! It was common for riveters to
recall the driller to remove bad rivets.
> or
> are the bad rivets interspersed with the good? And what effect do these
> two scenarios have on joint strengths and performance? That sort of
> thing.
>
> --
> Tim Foecke, PhD
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> http://nano.nist.gov
> ______________________________________________
Yours
James Alexander Carlisle
Tim Foecke
> >
> > I have pictures of Olympic's underside showing her bottom lap joints were
> > double riveted, so I'm not sure about your observation. Queen Mary was
> > treble riveted.
>
> There are not observations. They are documented and were explained by
one of the
> Titanic riveters.
Then my picture proves him wrong in at least this case.
>
> >
> >
> > The rivet quality population distribution issue I refer to applies to all
> > of the rivets. It has to do with how we simulate the strength of the
> > rivets, and how do we introduce the variability in strengths. Are there
> > weak seams in places where bad batches of rivets are installed en mass,
>
> Do you really expect me to believe that riveters would install bad
rivets after
> serving a 5 year apprenticeship plus trade time! It was common for riveters to
> recall the driller to remove bad rivets.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. "Bad" refers to metallurgical
quality, which he would have absolutely no way of knowing, not loose
rivets, which yes were drilled out.
Perhaps you should get up to speed on what we are talking about.
Mark E. Taylor
<berg1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Mark, thanks for the analysis! When you give me 0 and Tim 1, is that a
> subjective score?
Simple math. Tim has presented firm scientific data to support his
positions. You have not.
>
> The information posted by Rob from the 1912 British Enquiries should in my
> opinion be worth at least 1 point on my side. That is just my subjective
> opinion!
Again that is not sufficient. It needs to be scientifically verified.
It is subjective. The testimony does not prove anything. For instance
if ingest a herbal product which in my view helps me, is that proof
that the product works? No, not at all. It needs to be scientifically
validated. Same thing here. The testimony is not provable; scientific
tests need to be done to determine whether or not a coal fire would
have done what you think it did.
And since you seem to be the main proponent of this theory right now,
the burden is one you to prove it. Right now it is nothing more than
speculation.
Mark E. Taylor
Netwatch
www.internetfraudwatch.com
email:netw...@pobox.com.co
Mark E. Taylor
Foecke <tfoecke_...@nist.gov> wrote:
>
> However, if you want to find an *UNBIASED* second and third opinion (ie
> someone who has no agenda and doesn't give a damn how the chips fall), you
> will have to pay for it. Be very suspicious of volunteers. I have had
> many offers of help in this project, most from companies or consultants
> wanting to build their resumes, or activists with an axe to grind. And
> simply parroting "someone should do this" will never get the job done and
> is simply an attempt at providing yourself with cover.
Tim is correct here. You need to select people who are unbiased and
independent or your results will be faulted.
I do not know whether a coal fire had anything to do with the sinking
or not. I simply say it is unproved until we have had a number of
tests to determine the veracity of the theory.
Berg1912Ti
Berg1912Ti
and
>independent or your results will be faulted.
Then you say--
>I do not know whether a coal fire had anything to do with the sinking
>or not. I simply say it is unproved until we have had a number of
>tests to determine the veracity of the theory.
Again I agree!!!
James Alexander Carlisle
Tim Foecke wrote:
> > >
> > > I have pictures of Olympic's underside showing her bottom lap joints were
> > > double riveted, so I'm not sure about your observation. Queen Mary was
> > > treble riveted.
> >
> > There are not observations. They are documented and were explained by
> one of the
> > Titanic riveters.
>
> Then my picture proves him wrong in at least this case.
Ref. Book Titanic Belfast's Own by Stephen Cameron, page 18, lines 3 and 4.Please
check your photo for flush ends.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The rivet quality population distribution issue I refer to applies to all
> > > of the rivets. It has to do with how we simulate the strength of the
> > > rivets, and how do we introduce the variability in strengths. Are there
> > > weak seams in places where bad batches of rivets are installed en mass,
> >
> > Do you really expect me to believe that riveters would install bad
> rivets after
> > serving a 5 year apprenticeship plus trade time! It was common for riveters to
> > recall the driller to remove bad rivets.
>
> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. "Bad" refers to metallurgical
> quality, which he would have absolutely no way of knowing, not loose
> rivets, which yes were drilled out.
>
> Perhaps you should get up to speed on what we are talking about.
Perhaps you should get up to speed in the trade of riveting. Bad sounding was common
for getting the driller back. The bad sounding was caused sometimes by bad
metallurgical quality. The "bad" I referred to was the rivets and riveting
procedures including bad soundings!
James Alexander Carlisle
Tim Foecke
> Tim Foecke wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > I have pictures of Olympic's underside showing her bottom lap
joints were
> > > > double riveted, so I'm not sure about your observation. Queen Mary was
> > > > treble riveted.
> > >
> > > There are not observations. They are documented and were explained by
> > one of the
> > > Titanic riveters.
> >
> > Then my picture proves him wrong in at least this case.
>
> Ref. Book Titanic Belfast's Own by Stephen Cameron, page 18, lines 3 and
4.Please
> check your photo for flush ends.
>
I don't doubt what he said. I have a picture that says otherwise. I'll
email you a jpeg with sufficient quality to see it.
And when you decide to rachet your attitude down to a level consistent
with scholarly discourse, I will continue our discussion. Until then,
later.
William J. Leary Jr.
Tim Foecke <tfoecke_...@nist.gov> wrote in message
news:tfoecke_sans_spam...@nano.nist.gov...
>> There are not observations. They are documented and were explained by
>> one of the Titanic riveters.
>
> Then my picture proves him wrong in at least this case.
I just checked the tape I made of the Discovery channel bit where they show
the pictures of the inverted section of the bottom of the Titanic.
Unfortunately, my VCR needs to be cleaned (or I've used the tape too many
times) but it LOOKS like double rows of rivets to me. Is this the
"double/treble" riveting you're talking about?
- Bill
Tim Foecke
Jr." <Par...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Yes, on the lap joints.
--
________________________________________________
Tim Foecke, Ph.D.
"I'm a Mechanical Metallurgist - I break things"
Bill Lambrukos
My understanding is the size/shape of the rudder was not a factor, but I
can't remember where I heard that. What was the finding of your analysis?
Thanks
Bill
Tim Foecke
<hel...@mediaone.net> wrote:
I'll have to ask Dick.
JETman
>
> > >
> > > I have pictures of Olympic's underside showing her bottom lap joints were
> > > double riveted, so I'm not sure about your observation. Queen Mary was
> > > treble riveted.
> >
> one of the
> > Titanic riveters.
>
> Then my picture proves him wrong in at least this case.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > of the rivets. It has to do with how we simulate the strength of the
> > > rivets, and how do we introduce the variability in strengths. Are there
> > > weak seams in places where bad batches of rivets are installed en mass,
> >
> > Do you really expect me to believe that riveters would install bad
> rivets after
> > serving a 5 year apprenticeship plus trade time! It was common for riveters to
> > recall the driller to remove bad rivets.
But what determined a "bad" rivet? Was laboratory analysis made of
sample rivets during construction? Many defects are "hidden" and could
include large numbers if a batch of ingredients for a consecutive
rivets were not to specs.
>
> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. "Bad" refers to metallurgical
> quality, which he would have absolutely no way of knowing, not loose
> rivets, which yes were drilled out.
>
>
I have no idea on what sort of quality assurance program existed during
the era of Titanic's construction but I would assume it was largely
visual.
In modern shipbuilding, hull components are joined by full penetration
welding techniques that also include x-ray and magnetic partical
inspection as well as visual. The chance of a structural failure due to
bad welding are significantly reduced from that of a riveted structure.
Another point. Rivets, (and similiar fasteners), are used in the
aerospace industry. Rivets are always stronger than the material that
they fasten. Individual rivet types are coded on the "heads" which
increases the accuracy of the accountability trail.
Bill Wormstedt
> I have tried to present a balanced and open view of the data, and let
> people interpret as they will. I am not married to any theory, and in
> fact have changed course a couple of times in 3 years. I welcome
> alternate interpretations of my observations, which are available to all.
> But simply floating a theory that "feels right" with absolutely no proof
> other than a convenient reading of a hearing transcript is useless.
>
> --
> Tim Foecke, PhD
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> http://nano.nist.gov
> ______________________________________________
Tim - I just want to thank you for your continued presence on this newsgroup. You
have first-hand information the rest of us do not have, and are willing to share -
which helps all of us curious about the Titanic.
--
Bill Wormstedt
Worm...@worldnet.att.net
home page - http://home.att.net/~wormstedt
Bob Botts
Bill Wormstedt wrote:
>
>
> Tim - I just want to thank you for your continued presence on this newsgroup. You
> have first-hand information the rest of us do not have, and are willing to share -
> which helps all of us curious about the Titanic.
>
> --
>
> Bill Wormstedt
> Worm...@worldnet.att.net
>
> home page - http://home.att.net/~wormstedt
I'd like to second that, and also thank Bruce and all others who've
participated in this debate. I'll pass on thanks from my father as
well, (we've discussed the characteristics of Titanic's iron to pass the
time during a recent illness). My father was cranking out 12,500 tons
of iron/day from the blast furnaces he ran, and wouldn't you know, he'd
just have to have an opinion too... :-)
Cheers... Bob