Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"the Titanic"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "the Titanic"

    I seen the Titanic again last weekend for the umpteenth time, This time i was aware of the fact that the ships rivots were the weak link and most likely the culprit that brought the beast down (besides the arrogance of many)
    The thing is-is the first time i seen that movie I came to a conclusion that it still would have been posible to save everybody --- i will tell you guys how but wanted to let some of you get a guess or perhaps a theory of your own in first, So im giving you eggheads till late tonight and then i will give the first one who gets it right a "gold star" (and i dont just pass them out to anybody)

    If no one gets it then I will tell you my theory and see if you blokes think it would be viable -- maybe also hear some better idea's than mine,,, what a beast of a vessle that thing was...

  • #2
    Possible Solution

    The gash in the ship was at the bow. The chambers with the gash, flooded and the water filled those chambers. Since there were no "tops" on the chambers, water came over the top of the bulkhead of the flooded chamber and started to flood the adjacent chamber. The rear chambers could have been flooded until the stern was low enough in the water to raise the damaged portion of the ship out of the water and stop the water intake. This would a be a possible solution but depending upon the length of the gash, many of the rear chambers would have to have been flooded and this may have been enough to make the ship sink faster.

    I read a report in an Engineering Journal many years ago that stated that brittleness in the steel plates and rivetrs were the problem. An unused rivet was found that had been given to his grandson by one of the men who built the Titantic. The analysis of the metal in the riviet showed that it has a very high sulfur content and was very brittle when close to freezing, just the conditions when the ship struck the iceburg.

    Bill
    Bill

    Being ROAD KILL on the Information Super Highway and Electronically Challenged really SUCKS!!

    Every problem can be solved through the proper application of explosives, duct tape, teflon, WD-40, or any combo of the aforementioned items.

    Comment


    • #3
      "I came to a conclusion that it still would have been posible to save everybody"

      The answer would be, that the ENTIRE stupid stunt, should never have happened in the first place.

      I win.
      Gene

      Comment


      • #4
        answer

        Arrogant Englishmen off the coast of Newfoundland...
        The truth is we torpedoed the bastards.
        Iceberg my ass. Story made up to keep the people in the UK at ease.
        A proud NL
        e
        Last edited by motorworks; 11-29-2006, 08:42 PM. Reason: sp mistake
        please visit my webpage:
        http://motorworks88.webs.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          I am sorry I used the "stupid" word. It should have been "ignorant".
          Gene

          Comment


          • #6
            I always thought they should of used the iceberg as a life raft. Could of held everyone till the Carpathia showed up.
            Wow... where did the time go. I could of swore I was only out there for an hour.

            Comment


            • #7
              The sinking was unstoppable. The way to save everyone possible would have been for the band to immediately put down their instruments and run screaming to the lifeboats with shrieks of "We're sinking!" carrying over the cold dank breeze to all who would hear them. That would have put people in the boats while the ship was still fairly level. They never took it seriously until it was too late. There's a lesson in that.

              Speaking of lessons, there was time to kill and if there had been 10 or so interested people, the ship's machinist could have demonstrated single point threading on one of the fine lathes available to them. As it happens they're still down there swarf free and unused. Opportunity lost.

              Ok, warped, but on topic

              Comment


              • #8
                Now i'm not sure - but my sister is a big history buff (in fact she went back to school to get a masters in history with emphasis on women in medieval times...now theres a useful degree ) and remember her saying something about the ship not having enough life boats. Seems like they had more passengers and crew members than the life boats could handle. No idea if i'm remembering this correctly - just thought i'd toss it out there.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Fortunately, I've only seen the movie once. To me, it's inconceivable that that many people should die in a movie studio.

                  I know it was in a studio, 'cause when the rescuers were rowing about and shouting for survivors, their voices echoed.

                  Not that much to echo off of in the Atlantic, is there?

                  So it's all just a conspiracy, and I want my star! And make sure it's a real Gold Star, not just a chainring bolt that fell off your cranks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've never seen the movie and don't intend to. I imagine that voices could echo from a nearby iceberg lurking in the dark.
                    Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Titanic & changes....

                      IIRC the Titanic disaster was one of several ship sinkings in the early part of the 20 th century that sparked changes to life saving apparatus regulations...now we are/ have chang(ed)ing back to allowing life jackets/ survival suits rather than life boat/ raft capacity, at least for coastal vessels in Canada. (Freeze in the water....).
                      The water coming in over the tops of bulkheads that you refer to is because they were "partial" water tight bulkheads...ie not carried up to the full height of the highest full longitudinal deck. These did not form a fully watertight compartment and so didn't contribute much to preserving the bouyancy of the vessel. That may have been a moot point if the ice damage flooded enough compartments to destroy any reserve bouyancy or upset trim beyond any recoverable limits. (Via pumping & damage control. Although loss of steam due to boiler flooding would have killed all power eventually....)
                      Modern vessels are constructed with a logical arrangement of transverse & longitudinal collision bulkheads & coffer-dams (full height) as well as partial water tight bulkheads to keep a vessel afloat in head-on & mid-body collisions. (These are also part of the framing system. Modified "Isherwood" construction, among other names.) Getting the bottom torn out of a single hulled vessel (aka BC Ferry Corp's "Queen of the North" sinking) or significantly rupturing the double bottom of many modern ships will still result in a sinking when the weight of water in exceeds reserve bouyancy & pumping capacity.
                      Air testing of tanks & compartments is often a source of aggravation for new-construction superintendants & welding foremen in the shipyard.
                      Even my own wooden boat has 2 watertight bulkheads, fore & aft of the engine space. (On a 45 ft vessel...) Not that I want to test any theory here.
                      As for the Titanic's metallurgy...have any verifiable studies been done on steel samples from the ships hull regarding transition temerature ? That is probably a "red herring" given that riveted hulls didn't tend to have crack propagation problems associated with early welded steel hulls... (rivet seams tend to be "crack stoppers" due to being a discontinuity, un-like welds.)
                      I am unaware of any information that convicted the Titanic of being a floating lair of stress concentrations either (Unlike some Liberty ships or T-2 Tanker designs....) but then she sank on her maiden voyage....Little time for "in-service" testing.
                      Those are my comments & questions, FWIW....
                      Rick

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The Titanic sank for one simple reason,an arrogant bastard who insisted on running flank speed though an ice field.I would be willing to bet that any modern ship of modern design and construction would also suffer significant damage if it hit a sizeable iceberg at that speed.

                        Even still the ship might have survived if the crew had not tried to avoid the collision.Hitting it head on should have done less damage than the long raking blow it revieved.
                        I just need one more tool,just one!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A technical quibble or two.......

                          one.... incoming water has no weight of significance. The issue is lost bouyancy, not weight. since there is a hole in the side or bottom, if there were any weight, i.e. if that water were being held "up" above where it could otherwise run to, it would run out the hole. Since it does not, it is contributing no weight.

                          two... The other big problem is stability. Water inside teh hull gives what the marine folks call "free water surface".... Just like a pop bottle part full of water.

                          If you weight a pop bottle with some stones, it will float bottom down. It will be stable, that is if you tilt it, it will pop back vertical

                          If you let an equivalent amount of water in, it may float at the same depth, but you can easily tip it in any direction, since the water does not stay put, it flows to be horizontal again. It naturally flops over anyway that it is pushed.

                          So, if you lose enough stability by free water surface, you can capsize even though the ship could stay afloat in terms of displacement. There have been one or two capsizings alongside dock when a fire department flooded too many holds fighting a fire, even though there was NO hole in the hull.

                          So, all is not necessarily well even if the ship is still afloat.....
                          1601

                          Keep eye on ball.
                          Hashim Khan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As for the Titanic's metallurgy...have any verifiable studies been done on steel samples from the ships hull regarding transition temerature ?
                            Yes, the steel has been tested recently. Samples were recovered from the wreck and show high levels of sulphur that renders the samples brittle at low temperature.
                            Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Analysis of Steel from the Titanic

                              Dateline: 02/28/00
                              By Alan Bruzel
                              History
                              The wreck of the Titanic lies on the ocean floor, 620 kilometers (385 miles) south of Newfoundland under about 3,700 meters (12,000 feet) of water. More than 1,500 people perished during that tragedy which took place in the early morning hours of April 15, 1912 when the Titanic, steaming at about 22 knots, sideswiped an iceberg. Robert Ballard and his undersea investigators located the wreckage on September 1, 1985. On August 15, 1996, steel hull samples were recovered for metallurgical analysis.
                              Results of the Analysis
                              Phosphorous levels in Titanic steel were determined to be about four times higher than the level of that element in modern steels, and sulfur levels about twice as high, indicating that the Titanic's steel – originally forged in Glasgow – was probably produced in an acid-lined open-hearth furnace. Manganese:sulfur ratios in Titanic steel were 6.8:1. Compare this with ratios of up to 200:1 found in today's steel. Although in hindsight not the most fitting for ocean crossings, the Titanic's steel was the best available; her sister ship, the Olympic, saw more than 20 years of service.
                              Implications
                              Phosphorous in steel initiates fractures. Excess sulfur in steel will combine with iron to form iron sulfide, another fracture propagator. Too little manganese makes steel less ductile and more susceptible to fracture than a manganese-rich steel. Hull plate samples from the Titanic yielded ductile-brittle transition temperatures of 32oC (90oF) for longitudinal specimens and 56oC (133oF) for transverse specimens. Modern steel shows a ductile-brittle transition temperature of minus 27oC (minus 16oF). Combine all of the above with a North Atlantic water temperature of near freezing, and one can postulate a scenario where the estimated entry of more than 40,000 tons of water through breaches comprising an area of little more than 1.1 square meters (12 square feet) along the starboard hull – not from an erroneously ascribed 100 meter (300 foot) gash – caused the demise of the Titanic's steel hull from brittle fracture due to low temperature.




                              http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c10/c.../aa022800a.htm
                              Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X