"HEMI - Powered" wrote in message
...
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.

Interesting read so far. And as far as I know nothing said is incorrect.
But I'd like to add another reason why the Titanic sunk. The water tight
bulkheads were only water tight to 8 feet and the ceilings in those bulk-
heads were 10 feet high (I am probably wrong about the height, but you
get the idea). Once one of the bulkheads started overflowing to another,
they all started to fill, and then the ship was doomed. And another little
side note about the steel. Even if the steel had passed the standards
for the day, it was never tested for the cold waters of the North Atlantic.
And the cold makes the steel much more brittle.

Of course it goes without saying that a double bottomed hull would have
saved the ship anyway.

wizofwas

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

[snip my own testimony]
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.

Interesting read so far. And as far as I know nothing said is
incorrect. But I'd like to add another reason why the Titanic sunk.
The water tight bulkheads were only water tight to 8 feet and the
ceilings in those bulk- heads were 10 feet high (I am probably wrong
about the height, but you get the idea). Once one of the bulkheads
started overflowing to another, they all started to fill, and then
the ship was doomed. And another little side note about the steel.
Even if the steel had passed the standards for the day, it was never
tested for the cold waters of the North Atlantic. And the cold makes
the steel much more brittle.

Thank you for the vote of confidence on my recollections, wiz. You are
obviously correct about the height of the bulkheads guarded by water
tight doors as well as the number of doors themselves. The designers
simply couldn't imagine a situation where so much water would rush in
as to begin to sink the ship by the bow enough to go over the top of
the bulkheads, which is precisely what DID happen. I glossed over this
as part of a very short statement on the standards of the day for ship
construction that led to the belief whether correct or what turned out
to be totally incorrect that Titanic was "unsinkable."

Another much more recent example is the 1955 or so sinking of the
Italian liner, Andrea Dorea hit by the Swedish ship Stockholm about 1/3
of the way aft right into the side of the hull. The ice-breaker bow of
the Stockholm literally cut a swath almost from top to bottom of the
Doria and likewise overwhelmed her much improved watertight bulkheads,
even in warm temperatures and with far stronger steels. But, and this
is extremely important, only around 50 lives were lost, all I believe
directly in the path of the initial hit. The ship stayed afloat for
many hours, my recollection is perhaps 8 hours or so, well enough time
to evacuate the passengers to life boats now mandated to be sufficient
for all aboard. So, there wasn't an "unsinkable" ship in 1912, not in
1955, and none in 2008, but a LOT more so these day, I should think.

Of course it goes without saying that a double bottomed hull would
have saved the ship anyway.

Yes, 'tis also quite true. For strictly financial reasons, a double-
bottom was omitted from Titanic and even still so today except perhaps
in cases where a sinking or partial sinking causes environmental
damage, e.g., an oil tanker. But, it is also tragic that for financial
reasons, a decision was made by Titanic's builders to limit the
thickness of the hull plates in order to save the cost of steel, cost
of assembly time and labor, and weight which in turn would have
required either much larger and expensive engines or slower speeds or
both. And, that isn't what you want to to do if you're the CEO of White
Star Lines!

--
HP, aka Jerry

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