Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...

Leeboards I learned from boatbuilder Dave Fleming.

I'm not sure about the bow configuration's purpose. Apparently it
worked quite well ass it has been in use for many centuries..

Maybe Bouler knows some more, it's his favorite ship if I'm
right... Regards,

You're right there, my father, grandfather and grandgrandfather
sailed these ships before I was born.
I cannot answer the question about the bowconfiguration but I
think because they were cargo ships there was more space in the
ship than with a small bow.
Dont forget, these ships were aground by low tide in the
"Zuiderzee" and the "Waddenzee" waiting for high tide to go on.
BTW, thanks for this beauty Jeroen.

Interesting stuff I don't recall hearing about before, Bouler.
Thanks for sharing it with the group.

I am hardly a nautical engineer but for maximum cargo capacity at a
given length and a given amount of material, it is necessary to
displace the most water possible using the shape of the hull. Thus,
a wide ship with a blunt bow shape tends to be the best since it
displaces a good deal of water and at the same time draws the least
depth making it ideal for inland waterways.

Thats exactly the reason, a lot of lakes have shallow water in The
Netherlands

OTOH, this configuration is
very wasteful of power and cannot get very much speed over the
water before friction caused by a gigantic bow wave overwhelms the
power of the engines. Thus, in the case of true "tall ships" such
as the fast clippers of the 19th century, speed was more valued
than cargo tonnage and draft. Today, however, the pendulum has
swung back to cargo capacity especially for container ships and
tankers as power plants have advanced tremendously in the last 20
or so years while costs have skyrocketed.

Clippers were sailing in deep water.
In the early year the ships were nice and had class.
Nowadays they think what the cargo is and and build something around
it that floats and call it a ship;-(

I understand the purpose of the clippers and the fact that because of
both their hull design and the configuration of their sails they were
unsuited for smaller bodies of water and totally unsuited for rivers
and canals. However, I used the clippers as an example of the
difference in hull designs for speed vs. cargo capacity.

One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms between a
huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of the fleet such
as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud passenger liners
such as the SS United States or the first Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had
Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so concerned with setting a new
speed record for a transatlantic crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he
would have both slowed down and move 100 miles or so south when warned
about the many sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to
take the risk because being more conservative but decreasing his risk
would have cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he
learned to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew,
and himself.

Now, undoubtedly I've made a number of errors in the above but as I
said, my background is much more mechanical engineering from an
education point-of-view and specifically car body engineering from
a practical point-of-view so corrections to my factual errors would
be much appreciated.

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to lead
with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not have a lot
of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you think?

--
HEMI - Powered, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht
...

OTOH, this configuration is
very wasteful of power and cannot get very much speed over the
water before friction caused by a gigantic bow wave overwhelms the
power of the engines. Thus, in the case of true "tall ships" such
as the fast clippers of the 19th century, speed was more valued
than cargo tonnage and draft. Today, however, the pendulum has
swung back to cargo capacity especially for container ships and
tankers as power plants have advanced tremendously in the last 20
or so years while costs have skyrocketed.

Clippers were sailing in deep water.
In the early year the ships were nice and had class.
Nowadays they think what the cargo is and and build something around
it that floats and call it a ship;-(

I understand the purpose of the clippers and the fact that because of
both their hull design and the configuration of their sails they were
unsuited for smaller bodies of water and totally unsuited for rivers
and canals. However, I used the clippers as an example of the
difference in hull designs for speed vs. cargo capacity.

I understand.

One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms between a
huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of the fleet such
as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud passenger liners
such as the SS United States or the first Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had
Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so concerned with setting a new
speed record for a transatlantic crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he
would have both slowed down and move 100 miles or so south when warned
about the many sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to
take the risk because being more conservative but decreasing his risk
would have cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he
learned to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew,
and himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were buildin
to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough good iron for the
rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of the Titanic, one of the
reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of rumours
about the Titanic.

Now, undoubtedly I've made a number of errors in the above but as I
said, my background is much more mechanical engineering from an
education point-of-view and specifically car body engineering from
a practical point-of-view so corrections to my factual errors would
be much appreciated.

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to lead
with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not have a lot
of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

"Bouler" schreef in bericht
.. .


One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms between a
huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of the fleet such
as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud passenger liners
such as the SS United States or the first Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had
Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so concerned with setting a new
speed record for a transatlantic crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he
would have both slowed down and move 100 miles or so south when warned
about the many sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to
take the risk because being more conservative but decreasing his risk
would have cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he
learned to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew,
and himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were buildin
to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough good iron for the
rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of the Titanic, one of the
reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of
rumours about the Titanic.

Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...ets_book_says/
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms
between a huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of
the fleet such as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once
proud passenger liners such as the SS United States or the first
Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been
so concerned with setting a new speed record for a transatlantic
crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he would have both slowed down
and move 100 miles or so south when warned about the many
sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to take the risk
because being more conservative but decreasing his risk would have
cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he learned
to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew, and
himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were
buildin to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough
good iron for the rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of
the Titanic, one of the reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot
of rumours about the Titanic.

Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...rivets_book_sa
ys/

As Mr. Spock oft said to Capt. Kirk - "Captain, I shall consider it!".
Actually, I'll go look right now, as I've come to know you as a well-
read and very knowledgeable source of knowledge of things ships and
boats, and I am interested in what you have to say. Please stay tuned!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...ivets_book_say
s/

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 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.

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.

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!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

"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)

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan..._rivets_book_s
ay 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

I'll try again but I thought my URL was OK. But, as to your writing it
vs. reading it, let me respectfully refer you to your exact words, in
English, of course, right under your [snip] - "here you can read what I
WROTE". Did I misunderstand/misconstrue your intent here?

OK, I tried it again, I THINK the way you suggested, to wit:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...vets_book_says
/

I have Xnews line width set right now so that the only character that
wrapped is the slash. If I still have it wrong, please hold my hand,
you know what an Internet newbie I am!

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;-)

Please see my comment on this above and help me understand where I went
wrong.

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.

Yes, Bouler, I'm aware that you're gifted with two more languages than
I am, save a dozen words I might be able to cobble together in Polish
or German.

And, yes, rivets were used in cars, as recently as in the 2002 Chrysler
Prowler I owned a few years ago. The BIG difference was that car rivets
are relatively small and generally are simple attachment devices with
similar strength to a sheet metal screw. They're typically inserted
with a ribbon of rivets along a tape in something like an ammo belt for
a machine gun, with the rivet gun itself being either a manual tool one
squeezes to get the force or an air tool, as used in early car
applications.

But, NOT red-hot rather large rivets as were used until even the post-
WWII years in sky-scaper steel girder construction and are still used
in bridges, much as ships used them. It is the brittle metalurgy of the
hot rivets as used on ships like Titanic which are alleged to have
failed causing the sinking. I say "alleged" because it CAN be shown
with some difficulty that SOME rivets are defective. It is difficult
because they are severely corroded/rusted after some 80+ years in salt
water. I also use the term "alleged" because I don't personally know of
any nautical structural engineers or marine archeologists working with
engineers that can positiviely point to the rivets, again unfortunately
because that part of the hull is laying on its starboard side covering
up the "problem."

One last comment on rivets in cars. I think you're correct that no one
uses them for structural purposes anymore, probably not for a long
time. But, I THINK they can still be found in non-structural
applications such as attaching plastic trim on the interior or exterior
of the car where there's little stress and loading except to keep the
thing in place.

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.

Huh? If the rudder turn to port, i.e., left when looking down on it
from above, would the water not force the stern to starboard and thus
the bow to port, the intended direction? What I was talking about was
the British convention which literally meant turn the RUDDER to the
opposite direction from the turn command from the bridge. My somewhat
limited understanding is that the idea was thought to be simpler to
understand for officers and helmsmen to say where they wanted the stern
to go. Moreover, there's some debate over whether the officer on the
bridge thought that also using the engine telegraph to signal full
astern might pull the bow to port faster. This is the stuff that I
think is fraught with speculation and errors since I don't think any
eyewitnesses can say with confidence what actually happened, are there?
another link:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...64/501.html?10
97630857

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.

Please excuse me if I (again) insulted you, your intelligence, or your
English, Bouler, that was hardly my intent. My reply was rather lengthy
because I wanted to possibly stimulate some discussion by commenting
(from memory) pretty much the extent of what I know about the technical
side of the construction of Titanic and its sinking, and NOT to
obliquely lecture you or make fun of your English.

Again, since I am obviously missing some things here in your comments,
please guide me to correcting my reading or perception errors. Thank
you.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht
...
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan..._rivets_book_s
ay 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

I'll try again but I thought my URL was OK. But, as to your writing it
vs. reading it, let me respectfully refer you to your exact words, in
English, of course, right under your [snip] - "here you can read what I
WROTE". Did I misunderstand/misconstrue your intent here?

My mistake, I must have had a black out and thought wrote was the past tense
of read (sorry sir;-)

OK, I tried it again, I THINK the way you suggested, to wit:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...vets_book_says
/

I have Xnews line width set right now so that the only character that
wrapped is the slash. If I still have it wrong, please hold my hand,
you know what an Internet newbie I am!

I clicked on the link and it brought me were I had to be.
See screenshot.

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'm a teacher, not a technichen.;-)

Please see my comment on this above and help me understand where I went
wrong.

I did, and and you were right and I meant read in stead of wrote, humble
apollogies.;-)

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.

Yes, Bouler, I'm aware that you're gifted with two more languages than
I am, save a dozen words I might be able to cobble together in Polish
or German.

You forget German and French, but not so good as the other three;-)

And, yes, rivets were used in cars, as recently as in the 2002 Chrysler
Prowler I owned a few years ago. The BIG difference was that car rivets
are relatively small and generally are simple attachment devices with
similar strength to a sheet metal screw. They're typically inserted
with a ribbon of rivets along a tape in something like an ammo belt for
a machine gun, with the rivet gun itself being either a manual tool one
squeezes to get the force or an air tool, as used in early car
applications.

I don't know if there is an English word for, I could not find it but send
you a small picture, we call then "popnagels" and use them wit a
popnageltang (see other pic), do you know them in America?
We are not allowed to use them anymore to fix damage on a car.

But, NOT red-hot rather large rivets as were used until even the post-
WWII years in sky-scaper steel girder construction and are still used
in bridges, much as ships used them. It is the brittle metalurgy of the
hot rivets as used on ships like Titanic which are alleged to have
failed causing the sinking. I say "alleged" because it CAN be shown
with some difficulty that SOME rivets are defective. It is difficult
because they are severely corroded/rusted after some 80+ years in salt
water. I also use the term "alleged" because I don't personally know of
any nautical structural engineers or marine archeologists working with
engineers that can positiviely point to the rivets, again unfortunately
because that part of the hull is laying on its starboard side covering
up the "problem."

There are so many sorts of rivets, from small to large, maybe you can find a
picture on Google.
Ships is my hobby, but I never worked with ships like you did wit cars.

One last comment on rivets in cars. I think you're correct that no one
uses them for structural purposes anymore, probably not for a long
time. But, I THINK they can still be found in non-structural
applications such as attaching plastic trim on the interior or exterior
of the car where there's little stress and loading except to keep the
thing in place.

I think thats allowed, but not to fix severe damage on the outside.

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.

Huh? If the rudder turn to port, i.e., left when looking down on it
from above, would the water not force the stern to starboard and thus
the bow to port, the intended direction? What I was talking about was
the British convention which literally meant turn the RUDDER to the
opposite direction from the turn command from the bridge.

I said its technically possibel, I have a drill that can fo forward and
backword, so why not a steering wheel.
Of course this is pure hypotetic, but it must be possible.

My somewhat
limited understanding is that the idea was thought to be simpler to
understand for officers and helmsmen to say where they wanted the stern
to go. Moreover, there's some debate over whether the officer on the
bridge thought that also using the engine telegraph to signal full
astern might pull the bow to port faster. This is the stuff that I
think is fraught with speculation and errors since I don't think any
eyewitnesses can say with confidence what actually happened, are there?

another link:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...64/501.html?10
97630857

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.

Please excuse me if I (again) insulted you, your intelligence, or your
English, Bouler, that was hardly my intent. My reply was rather lengthy
because I wanted to possibly stimulate some discussion by commenting
(from memory) pretty much the extent of what I know about the technical
side of the construction of Titanic and its sinking, and NOT to
obliquely lecture you or make fun of your English.

You've never insulted me, but your work, engineering was very technical so
you use them easily.
My schoolenglish is good enough for a chat but when it comes to technical
stuff I need my dictionary.

Again, since I am obviously missing some things here in your comments,
please guide me to correcting my reading or perception errors. Thank
you.

Its simple Jerry, I simply am not familiar with technical words in English.
But I understood the whole interesting story and never had the need to
correct you.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms
between a huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of
the fleet such as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud
passenger liners such as the SS United States or the first Queen
Elizabeth. In fact, had Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so
concerned with setting a new speed record for a transatlantic
crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he would have both slowed down
and move 100 miles or so south when warned about the many sightings
of icebergs in his path, but he decided to take the risk because
being more conservative but decreasing his risk would have cost him
nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he learned to his
sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew, and
himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were
buildin to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough
good iron for the rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of
the Titanic, one of the reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of
rumours about the Titanic.

There are really two parts of the Titanic disaster/tragedy still being
investigated: the causes related to Capt. Smith's decision to
(apparently) ignore warnings from other vessels and modern information
just now coming to light as to structural weaknesses in the hull of the
ship itself. For the latter, one can point to the design standards for
metalurgy and riveting of the day as well as theories still being
investigated as to whether a gash was actually ripped open on the
starboard side or just many plates that buckled. Also, new information
suggests that the bottom of the hull fatally scraped along an
outcropping the the ice berg which ruptured the hill longitudinally for
some distance. Both are virtually impossible to prove or disprove even
with several successful dives on the wreakage site because the hull
sits in a position where it is impossible to determine a root cause and
reluctance to bring up any more steel makes it difficult to do more
extensive metalurgy studies. For the former, one can read the eye
witness accounts of the sinking from survivors and see gross
inconsistencies, such as whether the hull did or did not break in half
before the ship went down (it is now clearly known that it did crack in
half as the bow and stern sections of the wreakage are a couple of
miles apart).

And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety standards
of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at least for
wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking, Bouler, you're
into MY areas of expertise, especially those of engineering and amateur
historian, but NOT those of a nautical nature per se.

Have a good day and thanks for a stimulating discussion!

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to
lead with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not
have a lot of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you
think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.

I learned this trick from an older engineer early in my Chrysler career
when I still thought I was God's gift to the science and practice of
engineering. Briefly stated, I was told quite profanely and quite
abruptly that if one thinks they know, say, 85% of a given thing and
wish to find out the rest from the true experts, the LAST thing to do
is state all the stuff already known. Rather, I was told, to be very
humble and ask the expert to explain the basics of the issue, listen
patiently during the 85% already known, then perk up the ears when the
remaining 15% is told. The advantage, which I came to find out later
was especially valuable, is that the true expert is now one's friend
and my reputation is enhanced as a reasonable person rather than what
some people call a smart-ass or young whipper snapper. You might recall
during our gettting to know each other phase here that I used this
technique politely to learn the true nature of the on-topic ships for
this NG under the guise of asking a question about my understanding of
the term "tall ship", and NOT stating my facts as if they were the
Gospel because while I thought I was correct, I KNEW that you would
have the right definition for the various categories of sail and
powered boats and ships.

Again, thanks for the excellent discussion.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Wow,

all this discussion after a few skutsje pictures.. Thanx for all the
info all contributors. Lee-boards was the term I was looking for. Altyhough
a bit late, thanx!

Regards,

Jeroen