DS Forums

 
 

Is It Time To Pardon the Iceberg?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 17:37
jra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 40,632
Was it the one I saw last night where they tested the type of iron rivets used and proved that steel rivets would have been far stronger?
I don't think so, but it may have been one of the following.

DOCUMENTARY: Titanic: Anatomy of a Disaster
On: Quest (144)
Date: Saturday 7th January 2017 (starting in 3 days)
Time: 16:00 to 18:00 (2 hours long)

Intensive scientific research is shedding new light upon this tragedy; what can new technology and this investigation teach us about this supposedly unsinkable ship?
(Stereo, Subtitles)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marked By: 'Favourite: Titanic: Anatomy of a Disaster' marker
Keywords: Documentary, Stereo, Subtitles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=45488

Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.

=

DOCUMENTARY: Drain the Titanic
On: National Geographic (526)
Date: Friday 13th January 2017 (starting in 10 days)
Time: 22:00 to 23:00 (1 hour long)

An anytime alert is set for 15 minutes before the programme starts
The most famous shipwreck in the world lies over 12,000 feet down in the icy waters of the Atlantic Ocean. No one has fully recorded the extent of what remains of the Titanic - until now.
(Widescreen, Dolby Digital 5.1)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marked By: 'Reminder: Drain the Titanic' and 'Favourite: Drain the Titanic' markers
Keywords: Documentary, Widescreen, Dolby Digital 5.1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=45488

Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.

=

DOCUMENTARY: Titanic: Secrets Revealed
On: Movies4Men (325)
Date: Tuesday 17th January 2017 (starting in 14 days)
Time: 19:00 to 21:00 (2 hours long)

A documentary presented by Bernard Hill which investigates the loss of RMS Titanic on 15th April 1912. The programme includes reenactment, archive footage, interviews with survivors and the subsequent salvage operation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keywords: Documentary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=45488

Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.
jra is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 19:11
bri160356
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Made it Ma, Top of the World!
Posts: 3,984
They wouldn't know about it as it was below deck in the coal bunkers. It was mentioned at the inquiry in to the disaster but not considered a major factor in the sinking.
I remember watching one of the myriad documentaries and one of the lesser vaunted theories was that if Captain Smith had immediately (after striking the iceberg) put the engines full-astern (i.e. in reverse) then the ship going backwards at several knots would have delayed the sinking by up to 1 hour.

That would have allowed the Carpathia extra time to rescue more passengers;..all conjecture of course. Titanic sank at 2.20am,….Carpathia arrived at 4.00am.

The Titanic was doomed the moment she struck the iceberg IMHO,…notwithstanding shitty rivets and a bunker fire.

The Carpathia was sunk by a German U-boat in 1918;…Titanics’ sister ship Britannic was sunk by a German ‘mine’ in 1916.
bri160356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:13
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,534
I thought the view was that slowing the ship at that point would have meant if would have reacted to the rudder even less and made for a more direct hit?
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:32
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
They wouldn't know about it as it was below deck in the coal bunkers. It was mentioned at the inquiry in to the disaster but not considered a major factor in the sinking.
Crew members survived
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:43
bri160356
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Made it Ma, Top of the World!
Posts: 3,984
Crew members survived
Very few crew/officers from the engine room survived;..the higher up (physically) the ship you worked the greater chance your survival;

...all the 'look-outs' survived! ,...the words '"Iceberg dead ahead!" was never actually said.

50% - the percentage of Navigation Officers who survived (4 out of 8).

0% - the percentage of Engineering Officers who survived (all 25 perished, bravely working to keep the ship afloat for as long as possible).

100% - the percentage of lookouts who survived.
bri160356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:45
mb@2day
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,708
I remember watching one of the myriad documentaries and one of the lesser vaunted theories was that if Captain Smith had immediately (after striking the iceberg) put the engines full-astern (i.e. in reverse) then the ship going backwards at several knots would have delayed the sinking by up to 1 hour.

That would have allowed the Carpathia extra time to rescue more passengers;..all conjecture of course. Titanic sank at 2.20am,….Carpathia arrived at 4.00am.

The Titanic was doomed the moment she struck the iceberg IMHO,…notwithstanding shitty rivets and a bunker fire.

The Carpathia was sunk by a German U-boat in 1918;…Titanics’ sister ship Britannic was sunk by a German ‘mine’ in 1916.
I saw a different documentary on tv 10 years or so ago where someone made the claim that if the Titanic had not tried to avoid the iceberg and hit it straight on it would have absorbed the impact and not caused the liner to sink.

However as Captain Smith was not at the bridge and it was his second in command who made that choice we will never know if that would have happened. I think that Smiths thinking with Ismay aboard he would have made the option to try and avoid it in the hope they'd miss and continue on to New York.
mb@2day is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:01
bri160356
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Made it Ma, Top of the World!
Posts: 3,984
I saw a different documentary on tv 10 years or so ago where someone made the claim that if the Titanic had not tried to avoid the iceberg and hit it straight on it would have absorbed the impact and not caused the liner to sink.

However as Captain Smith was not at the bridge and it was his second in command who made that choice we will never know if that would have happened. I think that Smiths thinking with Ismay aboard he would have made the option to try and avoid it in the hope they'd miss and continue on to New York.
William Murdoch was the chief ‘mate’ on the Titanic’s’ bridge at the time of the collision:

“…if Murdoch had steamed right at the berg instead of trying to miss it, he might have saved the ship. There would have been a fearful crash –passengers and crew in the first 100 feet would have been killed by the impact- but the Titanic would have remained afloat.”

or

“….if the ship struck dead on, it would have failed at the same point, right in front of the bridge, and it would have sunk in less than 15 minutes, like the Lusitania, killing almost everyone.


http://www.williammurdoch.net/man-07...etrospect.html
bri160356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:27
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 19,358
Sulla, as you can see from the link provided on the previous page a number of surviving crew did in fact testify to the US and British boards if inquiry that there was a coal bunker fire, that they fought it for some days, and it was finally extinguished on the Saturday night.
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:28
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 19,358
Has anyone contributing to this thread ever annealed an old copper engine gasket?
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:36
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,614
The smallest detail that had huge consequences, no binoculars for the lookout:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blair_(mariner)
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:47
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,566
How much would the Titanic have had to slow in order to save the ship?

Why did they not take the iceberg threat seriously?
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:53
Merida
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 604
The smallest detail that had huge consequences, no binoculars for the lookout:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blair_(mariner)
Again, it's just one of the many sequences of events that lead to the sinking. As described in a previous post, disasters such as this are not the result of one thing only, but several.

I'm not sure how much blame the fire can be laid on the sinking - we'll probably never know for sure. But my understanding is that she was penetrated throughout too many bulkheads to stay afloat (five I think?). Fire aside, it was a mathematical certainty she would sink. I think anything up to four bulkheads with water would have seen her stay afloat but I think having five was too much. I'm sure when Thomas Andrews inspected the damage he'd have known this.
Merida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:02
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,614
Hubris sums it up. The Captain takes responsibility for steaming so fast so far north at that time of year.
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:03
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,202
Sorry, no, the melting point of steel is 1500C, there is no way a coal fire at 1000C could ever cause a structural failure, many steel-hulled boats have survived far worse fires without sinking.
I haven't seen the program or heard the evidence so can't really comment on the Titanic, but I would point out that if steel turns to a liquid at 1500°C (1370°C actually), which is what we mean by 'melting point', then a 1000°C fire could certainly cause a structural failure. The strength of steel drops considerably long before you reach its melting point.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:13
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 19,358
To re-use a copper cylinder head gasket, bike or motorcycle, you had to make it soft again so it could be clamped down on and sealed properly. To do this you "annealed" it...heated it UNTIL CHERRY RED...then quench cooled it in cold water.

But if you do the same to steel it doesn't soften it, it hardens it all the way through and makes it brittle.

Once the Titanic's coal trimmers STARTED to get the fire under control and damped down...there would be a point when the fire was no longer hot enough to keep tge hull plates cherry red. By the time this would have happened the ship was in the freezing North Atlantic iceberg lanes...and deprived of the banked heat behind them keeping them hot, the hull plates would have been suddenly quench cooled.

If the hull plates weren't brittle before - they would suddenly have become so then!
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:29
RobinOfLoxley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,829
I made a flat-blade, steel screwdriver at school. We were shown how to anneal/quench.

It snapped clean through the tip the second time I used it, on a slightly tight screw.
RobinOfLoxley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:41
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 19,358
Steel is supposed to be quench cooled from almost white hot to harden the surface layers...and also not quenched until fully cold. The outer layer/layers of the steel should be hardened...but the inside be softer so there's some flexibility in the sheet or bar. "Flexible" being a relative term here lol

Quench cooling from just cherry red to totally cold hardens it all the way through I.E. Makes it hard but brittle.
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:54
cobaye22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 962
I made a flat-blade, steel screwdriver at school. We were shown how to anneal/quench.

It snapped clean through the tip the second time I used it, on a slightly tight screw.
norman stanley
cobaye22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:33
Supratad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,002
So was the Titantic ramming the iceberg done deliberately in an attempt to extinguish the raging fire burning in the hull?


So many questions, we need answers goddamit!!

As a plan, it certainly worked. That fire went out.


The two conspiracy theories, fire and ice. I see myself in the middle of the two, kind of like lukewarm water.
Supratad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:18
Elvisfan4eva
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,676
Another 2 hour documentary last night on Quest. Why so many this week? That's 3 nights running I've watched one! Interesting though. Amazed at all the artefacts that are being restored and preserved in a facility in France. Clothes very well preserved in a suitcase. Letters and papers just fine still in suitcases.
Elvisfan4eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:22
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
If true it just confirms that an accident is never caused by one thing. Everything has to align in exactly the wrong way otherwise the accident would never happen.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:36
Elvisfan4eva
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,676
If owners White Star had followed the designers' recommendations and fitted 44 lifeboats instead of 16 there'd have been no deaths. They thought that 44 looked aesthetically wrong and in those days there were no regulations like now that there must be lifeboat places and lifejackets for EVERY passenger.
Elvisfan4eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:00
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,614
If owners White Star had followed the designers' recommendations and fitted 44 lifeboats instead of 16 there'd have been no deaths. They thought that 44 looked aesthetically wrong and in those days there were no regulations like now that there must be lifeboat places and lifejackets for EVERY passenger.
No there wouldnt have been no deaths. They didn't even fill the lifeboats they had so would have need almost two places for every passenger at the rate they were filling them so it's a simplification to say 'one per passenger', there were many other factors at play.
There were 1178 places and 705 passengers.
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:19
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
No there wouldnt have been no deaths. They didn't even fill the lifeboats they had so would have need almost two places for every passenger at the rate they were filling them so it's a simplification to say 'one per passenger', there were many other factors at play.
There were 1178 places and 705 passengers.
There were 2222 folk on the Titanic, 1300 of them passengers, it could have carried 2600 passengers
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:38
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,614
There were 2222 folk on the Titanic, 1300 of them passengers, it could have carried 2600 passengers
Sorry, 705 survivors of course. My post should make more sense now.
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55.