"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht
...
[snip]
Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...ivets_book_say
s/
A little logic here, you have to know not every link is complete and
sometimes broken.
Because the link was to large the last symbol is on the next rule.
Try again with on the end "says/".
You could have known Jerry grin
Bouler, I looked here but cannot find a reference to you specifically.
Could you please provide a closer link into the American Bar
Association web site where you wrote an article on the rivets of the
Titanic?
I did not write it, I read it;-)
I commented on the rivets briefly, I shall expand from my somewhat
meager knowledge of this particular aspect of the disaster.
To my knowledge, the rivet issue is one of faulty metalurgy based on
common practice of ship builders of the day. The problem is believed to
be two-fold: steel with an inconsistent amount of carbon content making
ductility variable from quite soft to extremely brittle based on
original pouring of the rivets and the already present ductility
variability further aggravated by some amount of annealing due to the
temperature the rivets were heated to, presumeably red-hot, from some
annealing down to very little. If an already brittle steel were
incompletely annealed by the heating process, it is much more likely to
fracture and fail under much less than it's design stresses and
strains, thus in the case of the Titanic, it is believed that many
rivets simply popped as the hull scraped along a submerged part of the
iceberg, allowing water to seep in at an unanticipated rate through
partially buckled steel hull plates.
Expanding on some other engineering aspects believed relevant in the
Titanic sinking, the steel of the hull plates themselves were also
suspected with modern technology and investigation techniques to be
substandard from both a normal yield strength and from a tendency to be
too brittle, again leading to buckled and sheared off hull plates which
would cause vast amounts of water to overwhelm the watertight bulkhead
doors and sink the ships. Unfortunatly, this cannot be confirmed or
dismissed as the hull is lying (laying?) on its starboard side.
Its your first language, my thirdgrin but we both know what you mean.
You have much more knowledge of iron and steel then I have, at least the
used rivets in cars to if I'm not mistaken.
I said used because I think its no longer allowed, correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaking of starboard, British merchant (and possibly naval) ships of
the day used a peculiar form of port and starboard steering conventions
so the officer on duty when the lookout reported the iceberg looming
ahead is believed to have order "hard a starboard", meaning really
"turn hard left". This may or may not have been correct in the first
place, but worse, could have actually been counter-productive as the
forward motion of the ship and the fact that the rudder is at the stern
would cause the stern to move to starboard if the order were given
correctly as it should which should have moved the bow and first few
hundred feet of the hull away from the berg. However, inertia from a
speed of around 23-24 mph (I believe it was going around 21 knots but
I'm not certain of this) would cause the ship to lurch on for some
distance before a turn in either direction could be affected. That,
combined with unexpected effects of a full astern propulsion, again,
supposedly ordered, might cause the bow 1/4 or so of the ship to
actually move into the berg for quite some time. Again, AFAIK, nothing
definitive can be said for these theories because of lack of physical
evidence of where the rudder was positioned and what the engines were
actually doing at the time of the collision but prior to the sinking.
Indeed Jerry a lot of theories.
Normally the rudder goes left if the ship must go to starboard.
I do'nt know how this is on big ships, because with a steering wheel its
technically simply to change the direction.
another link:
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...tml?1097630857
Maybe the link is in two parts again so take care.
Now, using modern computer CAE and simulation computer technology, it
is strongly believed that the hull could not possibly have withstood
the bending stresses of a sinking by the bow at an angle in excess of,
I believe, some 11 degrees, thus the hull can be shown to have broken i
half BEFORE the ship slipped under the sea, and is confirmed by the
relative positions of the bow and stern halves.
So, it is my understanding that the tragedy COULD have been prevented
entirely if Capt. Smith had heeded warnings of icebergs along the main
shipping lanes and ignored his own instincts as well as members of
White Star Lines officials on board. However, once the sequence of
events sealed the Titanic's fate hours before the actual collision with
the iceberg, it may STILL have been possible for Titanic to have
sustained enough LESS damage to have at least stayed afloat long enough
for the Carpathia [sp?] to arrive some 4 hours later, perhaps by
delaying or simply not issuing the hard a starboard order combined with
what my limited research suggests WAS an order for full astern power
which likely exacerbated the entire scenario.
Whew! Having said all of that, I must include my usual disclaimer: I am
an AMATEUR historian, and a rather poor one at that, and my nautical
knowledge is quite limited beyond simple strenght of materials
engineering as I have outlined above. I have not personally done a deep
dive (no pun intended!) research job on this, but simply evaluated
available facts from old Encylopedia Brittannica and similar
publications, a minor bit of Googling, but mainly public TV, Discovery
Channel, and The History Channel episodes that more or less have fully
explored the subject. The trouble with my kind of ersatz "research" is
that I must try to separate truth from drama on made-for-television
shows where the true intent is to sell air time, however, what I see on
TV especially comparing traditional views with those of the several
successful dives on the wreak seem to indicate the causes of the
sinking to be multiple.
In the end, though, does it really matter? I mean, the ship DID sink,
albeit NOT the way it is ludicrously portrayed in the movie "Raise the
Titanic!" which relies on the incorrect notion (of the time) that the
hull was intact, but simply filled with water.
Again, Bouler, I bow to your superior "knowledge of the sea" on all of
this and would still love to read your full account, so please get me
closer if you can. Thank you, and I know return control of your TV set
to you!
Lol I never heard that sayïng;-)
Wow, my English is not that bad, but when it comes to technical terms I have
to use my dictionnary.
That was a long reply Jerry and I understand just like you there were a lot
of reasons to question if there were made mistakes.
Most experts think there was a lot wrong from the time the ship was build.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)