Titanic ( merged )

[Chispa]

A fire in the sinking was argued many moons ago…aliens…wasn’t christened…the moon…all certainly questionable or a combination of factors sunk the Titanic.


AS FJAG posted on the Inquiry, fallow link:
Page 243 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 1 – 5:
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.

http://www.titanicandco.com/inquiry/Days1-5/files/basic-html/page243.html


N Y Times: In Weak Rivets, a Possible Key to Titanic’s Doom By WILLIAM J. BROAD APRIL 15, 2008

Researchers have discovered that the builder of the Titanic struggled for years to obtain enough good rivets and riveters and ultimately settled on faulty materials that doomed the ship, which sank 96 years ago Tuesday.

The builder’s own archives, two scientists say, harbor evidence of a deadly mix of low quality rivets and lofty ambition as the builder labored to construct the three biggest ships in the world at once — the Titanic and two sisters, the Olympic and the Britannic.
For a decade, the scientists have argued that the storied liner went down fast after hitting an iceberg because the ship’s builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. More than 1,500 people died.

When the safety of the rivets was first questioned 10 years ago, the builder ignored the accusation and said it did not have an archivist who could address the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html


dailymail.co.uk: Did poor workmanship sink the Titanic? Physicist claims missing rivets were crucial to 'cascade' of events that sank liner

• Three million rivets held ship together
• Poor-quality rivets meant part of hull that hit iceberg was weaker than rest of vessel
• Vessel had been rushed out for maiden voyage
• Weak rivets meant air compartments ruptured

By Rob Waugh Published: 16:24 GMT, 2 April 2012 | Updated: 17:56 GMT, 2 April 2012

Poor engineering was the fatal factor that sent the Titanic on its journey two and a half miles to the bottom of the Atlantic 100 years ago.

The steel and wrought iron fasteners used to hold the metal plates together had been inserted unevenly, and some were low-quality - due to the vessel being rushed out for its maiden voyage.

The weak rivets meant that sealed compartments meant to keep the vessel afloat burst open - condemning the passengers to an icy death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2124038/Did-poor-workmanship-sink-Titanic-Physicist-claims-missing-rivets-crucial-cascade-events-sank-liner.html

C.U.

 

[FJAG]

A fire in the sinking was argued many moons ago…aliens…wasn’t christened…the moon…all certainly questionable or a combination of factors sunk the Titanic.


AS FJAG posted on the Inquiry, fallow link:
Page 243 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 1 – 5:
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.

http://www.titanicandco.com/inquiry/Days1-5/files/basic-html/page243.html


N Y Times: In Weak Rivets, a Possible Key to Titanic’s Doom By WILLIAM J. BROAD APRIL 15, 2008

Researchers have discovered that the builder of the Titanic struggled for years to obtain enough good rivets and riveters and ultimately settled on faulty materials that doomed the ship, which sank 96 years ago Tuesday.

The builder’s own archives, two scientists say, harbor evidence of a deadly mix of low quality rivets and lofty ambition as the builder labored to construct the three biggest ships in the world at once — the Titanic and two sisters, the Olympic and the Britannic.
For a decade, the scientists have argued that the storied liner went down fast after hitting an iceberg because the ship’s builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. More than 1,500 people died.

When the safety of the rivets was first questioned 10 years ago, the builder ignored the accusation and said it did not have an archivist who could address the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html


dailymail.co.uk: Did poor workmanship sink the Titanic? Physicist claims missing rivets were crucial to 'cascade' of events that sank liner

• Three million rivets held ship together
• Poor-quality rivets meant part of hull that hit iceberg was weaker than rest of vessel
• Vessel had been rushed out for maiden voyage
• Weak rivets meant air compartments ruptured

By Rob Waugh Published: 16:24 GMT, 2 April 2012 | Updated: 17:56 GMT, 2 April 2012

Poor engineering was the fatal factor that sent the Titanic on its journey two and a half miles to the bottom of the Atlantic 100 years ago.

The steel and wrought iron fasteners used to hold the metal plates together had been inserted unevenly, and some were low-quality - due to the vessel being rushed out for its maiden voyage.

The weak rivets meant that sealed compartments meant to keep the vessel afloat burst open - condemning the passengers to an icy death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2124038/Did-poor-workmanship-sink-Titanic-Physicist-claims-missing-rivets-crucial-cascade-events-sank-liner.html

C.U.

I'm not disputing the "weak rivets" theory at all but in following up after reading your post I came across this article which argues that perhaps the rivets weren't that much of a problem.  http://marconigraph.com/titanic/rivets/rivets1.html Their experiments, while not fully scientific seem persuasive. Their ultimate conclusion is that "It may just be a matter of simple physics…any steel structure, hit with a greater mass at a certain momentum in just the wrong way, will suffer consequences. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't take a massive gash in the hull to sink the ship; in fact, our experiment showed that a seam need not be opened for water – under pressure – to find its way inside the hull."

Interesting stuff. I'm enjoying this thread and spending entirely too much time on it. Have to get back to my book.

:subbies:

 

[the 48th regulator]

I have read before, and the documentary touches on it.

What are the thought's on the use of inferior metal to build the Titanic.  Is that a major factor, since we are talking about the rivet theory.  Or is that theory a fallacy?

 

[Chispa]

I'm not disputing the "weak rivets" theory at all but in following up after reading your post I came across this article which argues that perhaps the rivets weren't that much of a problem.  http://marconigraph.com/titanic/rivets/rivets1.html Their experiments, while not fully scientific seem persuasive. Their ultimate conclusion is that "It may just be a matter of simple physics…any steel structure, hit with a greater mass at a certain momentum in just the wrong way, will suffer consequences. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't take a massive gash in the hull to sink the ship; in fact, our experiment showed that a seam need not be opened for water – under pressure – to find its way inside the hull."

Interesting stuff. I'm enjoying this thread and spending entirely too much time on it. Have to get back to my book.

:subbies:

My apologies should’ve elaborated; I know you’re not disputing, just added the inquiry U mentioned for those interested, and the rivet theory.

I can’t emphasise the importance of metal and rivets, even a plane requires expensive alloys, rivets, bolts, and all manufactured too special specification.

The evidence suggests for those times that was your typical high grade steel, published in 1998 although by 96-97 steel tests were conducted.

Recent tests of steel from the Titanic reveal that the metal was much more brittle than modern steel but the best available at the time, a metallurgical engineering professor at the University of Missouri-Rolla says in a paper to be published in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals.

The steel used to build the Titanic was not as "impact-resistant" as modern steel, according to Dr. H.P. Leighly, a professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at UMR. But it was the best steel available at the time, says Leighly, who studied some 200 pounds of steel from the wreckage.
Leighly's paper, co-authored by UMR metallurgical engineering student Katie Felkins, will appear in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals, the publication of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers.

Inferior steel wasn't the only reason the luxury ocean liner Titanic sank in the early morning hours of April 15, 1912. Other factors -- such as flaws in the ship's design, the crew's negligence and the lack of lifeboats -- also contributed to the disaster, Leighly says.

"The naval architects can point their fingers and say, 'It was bad steel'" that caused the Titanic to sink, Leighly says. "It's easy to point a finger and say, 'Bad steel.' But it's uncomfortable to point at yourself and say, 'Bad design.'"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971227000141.htm

 

[mariomike]

Regarding the ice burg.

The loss of life by ice burgs prior to Titanic was not many. Would that perhaps explain, what seems to me, a lack of caution? Number of lifeboats etc.

List of ships sunk by icebergs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_icebergs

 

[jollyjacktar]

My apologies should’ve elaborated; I know you’re not disputing, just added the inquiry U mentioned for those interested, and the rivet theory.

I can’t emphasise the importance of metal and rivets, even a plane requires expensive alloys, rivets, bolts, and all manufactured too special specification.

The evidence suggests for those times that was your typical high grade steel, published in 1998 although by 96-97 steel tests were conducted.

Recent tests of steel from the Titanic reveal that the metal was much more brittle than modern steel but the best available at the time, a metallurgical engineering professor at the University of Missouri-Rolla says in a paper to be published in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals.

The steel used to build the Titanic was not as "impact-resistant" as modern steel, according to Dr. H.P. Leighly, a professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at UMR. But it was the best steel available at the time, says Leighly, who studied some 200 pounds of steel from the wreckage.
Leighly's paper, co-authored by UMR metallurgical engineering student Katie Felkins, will appear in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals, the publication of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers.

Inferior steel wasn't the only reason the luxury ocean liner Titanic sank in the early morning hours of April 15, 1912. Other factors -- such as flaws in the ship's design, the crew's negligence and the lack of lifeboats -- also contributed to the disaster, Leighly says.

"The naval architects can point their fingers and say, 'It was bad steel'" that caused the Titanic to sink, Leighly says. "It's easy to point a finger and say, 'Bad steel.' But it's uncomfortable to point at yourself and say, 'Bad design.'"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971227000141.htm

Exactly.  Lots of things in play that contributed to the disaster.  I would imagine the rivets sheared like mad during the collision and opened up the seams as well.  Poor design, hubris, poor driving, the lookout not having access to binoculars to aid in his duties, how radio operations were run in those times on ships.... and on and on.  All the little things compound together and add up to a really big thing in the end.

 

[Chispa]

Exactly.  Lots of things in play that contributed to the disaster.  I would imagine the rivets sheared like mad during the collision and opened up the seams as well.  Poor design, hubris, poor driving, the lookout not having access to binoculars to aid in his duties, how radio operations were run in those times on ships.... and on and on.  All the little things compound together and add up to a really big thing in the end.

While a considerable amount of evidence, all theories are questionable in the Titanic saga, as being the main cause, certainly hitting the iceberg largely contributed. 

After some rough conditions on Lake Erie last week I just noticed these 3 rivets about ready to pop! Anyone have this happen? How'd you deal with it? Boat is an 8 year old Lund. These rivets are at the back on either side of the rear deck.
http://ontariofishingcommunity.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20024

Many savants in this matter concluded an accumulation of bad luck throughout the voyage, then hitting the iceberg, contributed in the sinking of the ship.

Why so many lives lost? M&M made a good observation on the amount of deaths pre and post sinking.

C.U

 

[FJAG]

Regarding the ice burg.

The loss of life by ice burgs prior to Titanic was not many. Would that perhaps explain, what seems to me, a lack of caution? Number of lifeboats etc.

List of ships sunk by icebergs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_icebergs

Probably a corollary of the "big sky, little bullet" theory. - For none gunners, back in the 1970s with Vietnam and airmobile ops being a big thing we got into a tortuous system of trying to deconflict artillery rounds and aircraft operating in the same piece of sky. We had air corridors and no fire corridors and no fly areas and everything under the sun that our graphical/tabular systems and first generation computers were really incapable of dealing with.  Eventually we got rid of most of that on the basis that the probability of a round hitting an aircraft, while not impossible, was so low as to be negligible; hence "big sky, little bullet".

Based on the few numbers of ships that MM showed, I don't doubt that mariners considered the need to keep schedules a higher priority than the minuscule chance that the ship's path and an iceberg would intersect (especially on a calm sea with a clear sky) even with warnings that there was ice in the area. Believe it or not but when you look at "Big Sky theory" in Wikipedia it calls this the "Big Ocean" theory.

:subbies:

 

[Journeyman]

Poor design, hubris, poor driving, the lookout not having access to binoculars to aid in his duties, how radio operations were run in those times on ships.... and on and on.

Yet, no one has mentioned the obvious -- the gods pissed off at Leonardo DiCaprio's acting.    :nod:

 

[Old Sweat]

It still comes down to hitting the ice berg, and that was because of a decision by the captain.

 

[the 48th regulator]

http://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/12/07/the-replica-titanic-cost-435-million-is-set-to-launch-in-2018/

The replica Titanic cost $435 million & is set to launch in 2018

The new boat is promising to be a close replica of its 1912 counterpart.

Cruise fans gather round. 106 years after the original ship sank to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, a new version of the RMS Titanic is set to launch in 2018.

The Australian billionaire Clive Palmer, who has never seen the movie, came up with the idea for the Titanic II, along with his new shipping company called the Blue Star Line. Palmer announced this project in 2012 with the hopes of launching it in time for the 100th year anniversary of the Titanic‘s fateful voyage. But due to series of delays the sail date was pushed back.

They are promising that the boat will be a fully functional replica, looking identical to the 1912 counterpart. They are also promising to have enough lifeboats for all the passengers, along with modern marine evacuation systems. For passengers that are interested in a walk down memory lane, the ship will also have replicas of the original lifeboats. The ship is going to have many of the original features, including the Turkish baths, a grand staircase, swimming pools, a squash court, and first, second, and third class tickets for sale. In order to meet safety standards, it’s going to have a welded, not a riveted, hull and it will be four yards wider.

The Blue Star Line and also the German hydrodynamic consulting team, Hamburg Ship Model Basin, have been undergoing safety tests on the new ship for several years. They won’t make the mistake of their forerunners and broadcast publicly that the ship is unsinkable, but they do say it’s completely seaworthy and up to all safety standards. James McDonald, the marketing director of Blue Star, stated that the new Titanic is going to have modern evacuation procedures, digital navigation, satellite controls, radar systems, and all things you’d expect a 21st-century ship to have.

To reflect the shift in the shipbuilding industry since Titanic’s day, 10and as an alternative to the Belfast-based Harland and Wolff, the Titanic II will be made out of China’s CSC Jinling Shipyard located in Jiangsu.

The new ship is going to cost around $435 million. This is around ten times the original cost. In today’s money, the original Titanic would have cost $44.57 million. The voyage course from Southampton to New York route is going to change – from Jiangsu to Dubai, Travel + Leisure reported.

Some of the relatives of the 1,5000 victims from the Titanic have condemned Palmer’s project as insensitive. But the overall reaction seems to be profitable and positive according to Palmer’s company.

We have another Titanic story:The Titanic survivor who opposed the doctors’ decision to amputate his legs and went on to become a tennis champion

If you’re looking for a one-of-a-kind adventure, try getting a spot to sail on the new Titanic in 2018.

 

[mariomike]

The replica Titanic cost $435 million & is set to launch in 2018

 

[the 48th regulator]

:rofl:

I love it!!!  Well done.

 

[mariomike]

:rofl:

I love it!!!  Well done.

Thank-you. 

But, I had to consider whether to post it or not it. From what I have read of that 112-page super-thread, there are a lot of people still in denial about climate change. They might not find it funny.

So, as a disclaimer, regarding the cartoon, it's not political. It's a joke! A lame joke at that. 

 

[FJAG]

Thank-you. 

But, I had to consider whether to post it or not it. From what I have read of that 112-page super-thread, there are a lot of people still in denial about climate change. They might not find it funny.

So, as a disclaimer, regarding the cartoon, it's not political. It's a joke! A lame joke at that. 

So you think there's a need to give trigger warnings on this forum now?  ;D

Personally I thought it was a great joke either way.  :bravo:

:subbies:

 

[the 48th regulator]

Thank-you. 

But, I had to consider whether to post it or not it. From what I have read of that 112-page super-thread, there are a lot of people still in denial about climate change. They might not find it funny.

So, as a disclaimer, regarding the cartoon, it's not political. It's a joke! A lame joke at that. 

Hopefully we are safe in this thread from the Negans....

 

[tomahawk6]

The subs he was looking at may have been Russian and the Thresher.I would have liked more info about what Ballard found.One interesting bit about the Titanic that a coal fire may have added to the speed which the liner sank.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/06/04/titanic-was-discovered-during-top-secret-mission-report-says.html