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

Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...ad_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;-)

I had similar problems when trying to learn written French in college.
In English, the past-tense of "read" (reed) is also "read" but is
pronounced "redd".

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

http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan..._rivets_book_s
ays /

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.

That is precisely what I see, Bouler. The reason I kept coming back at
you is that I was incorrectly looking for a note where your critique of
the book could be found until I found out that you had only READ the
report here but had not WRITTEN a critique. My apologies for
misconstruing your intent.

This is actually quite old news. I can't cite the date it was first
proferred as a theory of the sinking but it must go back at least 10
years. I didn't read this review nor the book but I've read enough
about investigations of other sinkings where the wreak could be
examined more easily and watched enough shows about the Titanic over
the years to understand the issue.

Without going off in the tall weeds on lots of techie stuff,
mathematicians and statisticians describe it two ways that may be
useful in understanding where the rivet failure theory fits into the
entire Titanic investigation. First is the principle that some types of
data or testing are termed NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT, meaning it may
be necessary to test for failed rivets to explain the Titanic sinking
but it is not sufficient on its own and one must look further for a
complete and proveable explanation.

Second is the principle of determining "root cause". ALL problems,
failures, anything that goes bad may have one or more causes, perhaps
dozens, or even thousands of causes, but there is only ONE so-called
root cause. Some equate this with "most important cause" but that is
inaccurate. Perhaps the best example I can cite is the 1985 space
shuttle disaster where it blew up 85 seconds into launch. Some hundreds
of causes were found and resulting in nearly 1,000 engineering changes
to the shuttle and its booster rockets. But, the ROOT CAUSE turned out
to be O-rings on the fuel tanks that failed and allowed leakage during
a cold-weather launch. This is the first launch of a space vehicle in
below-freezing weather at Cape Kennedy in Florida. Continuing just a
bit, the cold weather itself was also a cause of the disaster, of
course, yet it couldn't have caused it solely but ONLY because the O-
rings failed. In the theory of statistics, specific failure mode
analysis (sorry for the jargon but it is necessary to be precise and
accurate here, please just accept it, OK?) one strives to identify ALL
the modes of failure then use deductinve reasoning based on the facts
found and inductive reasoning based on facts NOT found to arrive at a
conclusion as to the most likely root causes in descending order of
importants and probability of likelihood. Then, using the probability
and statistics methods of positive, negative, and null hypothesis
testing, one attempt to isolate the ONE cause which MUST be fixed in
order to prevent a future failure.

Again, my apologies for the jargon and for the pretty deep math stuff
but again, please just go along for a bit more. One can remove causes
1, 2, 999 and STILL experience more failures if the removed, i.e.,
fixed, causes do not include the so-called root cause. Now, the
unfortunate bad side to failure mode analysis goes back to "necessary
but not sufficient". It is NECESSARY but sadly NOT SUFFICIENT to remove
the root cause if enough OTHER causes remain. Back to Titanic, failed
rivets may or may not be the root cause but clearly are A cause of the
tragic sinking. AFAIK, NO root cause has been developed and the latest
theory I am aware of, besides the hull plate metalurgy things I already
talking about, inadequate watertight bulkheads discussed by another
poster, and many other things, suggests that perhaps a secondary or
even the primary cause of the accident may have been bottom hull
scraping along an out-cropping of the berg, noted in other sinkings by
icebergs through history. Again, unfortunately the Titanic bow section
lies at an orientation that does not permit easy examination of its
bottom.

And, so the quest for as many causes of the sinking as possible goes
on. It might be easier if two things were true that are not: 1) the
wreak was in much shallower water and 2) international law and the
desire of all to respect the memories of the dead now prohibit
destructive testing or the bringing up of large pieces of the wreak
even if put back to rest on the ocean floor at a later time.

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.;-)

Cool your jets, Bouler, it is much my mistake as yours. I was aware of
your 3 languages and I am quietly aware of mistakes in spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and usage that you make that are quite similar to
most people who use English as a 2nd or 3rd language. I don't point
them out to you either in public or even in private because it is
inherently insulting. Rather, if I can, I simply figure out what is
correct and more on or perhaps ask question.

Specific to my mistake on this one, though, my intentions were MOST
honorable because my intent was to HONOR you for what I perceived as an
important contribution to the collective pool of knowledge about the
Titanic sinking. Sorry that I already knew about the rivet theory but I
was about to flood you with complements for superior knowledge of the
sinking based on careful research that enabled the ABA to quote you
directly. So, again, please accept my apologies for both
misunderstanding you and for snowing you under in what must've looked
to you like I was trying to refute your expert testimony. You are far
more the nautical expert then me, I just have a few - very few! -
tricks up my old-time engineer's sleeve when it comes to understanding
the science behind the sinking's many theories. But, you can trust and
I thank you for the fact that I now have a Favorite in IE6 pointing to
the ABA article.

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;-)

In my case, my mother was Polish written and spoken bi-lingual and I
picked up a few words here and there because we went to Massachusetts
every year when my father was laid off at the Plymouth Plant and heard
lots of Polish spoken at family gatherings. And, in my stay in West
Germany in the Army circa 1971, I picked up enough to order a good meal
anywhere - "eine wiener schnizel mit pomme frits und salade, und eine
bier, bitte, snell!". grin

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.

These are exactly what I was referring to that I believe are still in
use in cars today. We call these "pop rivets", perhaps the English
translation of "popnagels", I don't know that.

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 with cars.

Bouler, I am neither a car mechanic nor a car designer, I had a
relatively minor role early in my career in the development of front
and rear car SEATS. But, through my long career as I changed from pure
engineering into a variety of jobs related to computers and CAD, I
began to get to know more and more people from technicians and
mechanics to designers and draftsmen, engineers, supervisors, managers,
chief engineers, all the way up the vice presidents within Engineering
and Manufacturing. That's not bragging, it was just necessary for me to
know these people in order to do MY job of supporting their job by
providing CAD training and support and OA (Office Automation) support
to their people. Naturally, the more I could glean about the product
development process, the better I was able to do this.

That said, the car biz is VERY complex, and my knowledge is much more
complete - such that it is at all - on the sheet metal body, soft and
hard trim, and other aspects of the body of the car than it is for the
electrical systems, and my knowledges drops off very fast for engine
and transmission design, and for suspensions and brakes.

One of the many things I had to learn fast the hard way when I first
took my job at Chrysler was the difference between an education in the
basic mathematics, physics and chemistry underlying the science of
engineering from its practical application to the design, development,
testing, and manufacturing of actual parts and systems. There is a big,
BIG difference I found out quite painfully between engineering
education and practical engineering training and experience. So, just
as I can hardly do the complex math I once could, I can also no longer
talk with any certainty about what I'd learned over 3 decades about how
cars are put together. But, just as it is said that one never forgets
how to ride a bicycle, I still remember just enough to be dangerous.
grin

Perhaps in your case, your love of ships that is your hobby has enabled
you to take a pragmatic approach to learning about things nautical in
the same way that my interest in cars from my very early childhood was
pole-vaulted into an engineering degree and then with a LOT of time and
effort, a successful career. This effort for me has borne great fruit
in my current hobby of collecting car picture maybe the same as what I
am sure has been an equally great investment in learning about all
kinds of boats and ships has aided you in your hobby. Also, where you
live and where I live go a long way to why we know what we know and
don't know what we don't know, agree at all?

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.

What is much more common today are structural adhesives which allow
very fast assembly with no fasteners at all but with all of the
strength of a traditional fastener such as a screw or pop rivet.
Another fastener in common use today is the so-called single use
plastic push fastener. One type of these are called "Christmas tree
fasteners" because the little pieces of plastic has small ribs that
make them look like a Xmas tree. They are inserted from the back side
of a trim panel of some sort and pushed into a pre-stamped hole in the
inside sheet metal. They only go in once and are destroyed by the
removal process if a repair is need, so new fasteners must be used.

The American use of visible chrome-plated sheet metal screws with a
Phillips head went on for decades until the Japanes automakers such as
Honda and Toyota taught us quite painfully in the 1980s that interior
and exterior trim could be attached more firmly yet with a much better
look, fit, and finish with NO visible fasenters, hence the rapid rise
of adhesives and the one-time fasteners. Today, a visible screw or
rivet is almost impossible to find and manufacturers pride themselves
oon the good looks of even things like the engine compartment where
everything is hidden vs. the olden days where there were tubes, pipes,
hoses, clamps, wiring harnesses, all sorts of ugly stuff snaking it's
way around to support the powertrain.

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.

You mean "hypothetical" here, I assume? Yes, it is possible, but one
would have to get the water to flow over the rudder in a different way
than is traditional for a rudder steering system. One way might be the
growing use of water jets in patrol boats, pleasure craft, even larger
warships that squirt a high-pressure high volume stream of water out to
both propel and steer the craft. Obviously here, the force of the water
squirting to starboard would move the stern to port and the bow to
starboard.

Now, if you really mean that a rudder or water jet steering/propulsion
system can actually move physically to starboard and the BOW moves to
port, please describe it to me, as I'm not familiar with that I don't
think. Your analogy of a reversible drill motor is a good one and it's
application to a boat or ship is that which one major theory of the
Titanic sinking is based on. Namely, that it MIGHT have been more
effective in preventing a collision with the iceberg of minimizing the
damage if it did hit, if the office on the bridge hadn't ordered full
astern AND a hard a port turn but instructing the helmsman to spin the
wheel counter clockwise to move the rudder to port which was intended
under British convention to mean move the stern to starboard. The
reason this theory may have minimized the damage and possibly prevented
or delayed the sinking time is that the headlong dash due to inertia of
a huge ship traveling at over 20 knots might well have struck only a
glancing blow if the bow had turned INTO it rather than trying
desperately to turn away from it by both moving the rudder and
reversing propulsion.

These latter theories AFAIK are still under investigation using
advanced computer and real simulations of ship models similar to
Titanic. Computer models using graphics and CAE are more effective
since many, many test modes can be quickly simulated at very little
cost while also considering other factors such as temperature, wind,
speed, hull/rudder/propeller design, and even ship design. What most
prevents these advanced simulators from finding the root cause or at
least the most important causes of the sinking with little or no doubt
or dispute is that it appears to be impossible to gather enough
scientific data to support a correct and proveable conclusion.

Again, I must bow to you and others here who have superior knowledge of
the sea and nautical design by far than me. I am speaking ONLY of my
body of anecdotal, i.e., practical and observable, evidence and some
engineering knowledge. Please elaborate and/or correct anything I have
said that you believe to be both right and wrong.

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, my apologies for piling so much on you at one time and again
using terms I wasn't sure you were familiar with. You were - and still
are - a good school teacher so you know as I do that the very best
teachers can find a way to reduce complex and technical subjects down
to the level of their students in a way that promotes both
understanding and self-esteem while preserving the scientific and
mathematical correctness. An example may help he

In High School, in both freshman Advanced Science and senior Physics, I
needed to memorize dozens and dozens of equations governing the Laws of
Uniform Motion as first poltulated by Isaac Newton. But, once I got to
college and had a freshman course in basic calculus, I could now use
only F = MA (Force equals Mass times Acceleration) to DERIVE then
entire set up Newtonian rules of motion! What a difference! Yet, my
science and physics teacher - the same man - couldn't do this because
our H.S. at that time did not teach a senior math course in rudimentary
calculus. Therefore, the analogy here is that I failed miserably to
impart what little structural, metalurgical, and nautical engineering
information I had plus their application to the Titanic sinking such
that I knew it because I failed to bring the discussion down from the
sophomore level of enginnering school perhaps to a level of hobbyists
who just like ships.

I appreciate that I didn't insult you directly as I feared but I feel I
AM guilty of "insulting" you by acting in what appeared to be a
superior manner in attempting to put too much science and math out too
fast. My apologies for THAT, Bouler.

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.

In future, I will try even harder to define any terms I use even if it
means I may be telling you and others things you already know, rather
than risk alienating you or causing you to zone out by an overly
technical discussion. What I SHOULD have done is start off slowly and
with less words and rachet up the words and the technical jargon as my
readers absorbed what I'd already said and I could be guided by
questions and the comments of yours and others as to where to aim my
next installment of knowledge.

Still, Bouler, I hope that you and others that haven't spoken up in
this sub-thread at least gleaned SOME new knowledge despite my
clumsiness as an junior engineering professor, and I hope that today's
clarifications help in that regard.

Of course, if I am still unclear but you are still interested in what I
may be able to teach you, please help ME by asking for clarification
where needed. And, to help me avoid another of my own nautical
"disasters", please guide me when you can as to what you already know
and where your strengths and weaknesses may be on the more technical
subjects.

I hope we call ALL agree on a couple of things he one is that nobody
knows the complete story of the Titanic sinking and the other is that
nobody knows it all when it comes to ship and boat design or
seamanship. Thank you for a most stimulating discussion.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"