| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
1 Attachment(s)
5 pictures showing a skutsje (or barge) tacking. Enjoy, Regards, Jeroen - Posted by Ozum - all-in-one yEnc newsreader, scanner/robot and freeware autoposter. - yEnc explained (yEnc basic FAQ) - http://www.ozinsight.com/yencfaq.html |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
Jeronimus added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
5 pictures showing a skutsje (or barge) tacking. In this view, it looks something like a blunt-nosed schooner. What makes a "skutsje" different than a simple schooner, other than the apparent capacity to carry more weight for, perhaps, a commercial purpose? Thanks. Just trying to edumacate myself ... -- HP, aka Jerry "You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in news:Xns9A97344983C0EReplyScoreID@
216.168.3.30: Jeronimus added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... 5 pictures showing a skutsje (or barge) tacking. In this view, it looks something like a blunt-nosed schooner. What makes a "skutsje" different than a simple schooner, other than the apparent capacity to carry more weight for, perhaps, a commercial purpose? Thanks. Just trying to edumacate myself ... A skustje has a flat bottom with a very shallow draught (i think app. 30 centimeters (1 foot), which allows it to sail into even the shallowest waters (either by sail, or drawn by horses or crew). Upwind performance is created by the side-blades (don't know what they are called in english). 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, Jeroen |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
In article 3,
Jeronimus wrote: "HEMI-Powered" wrote in news:Xns9A97344983C0EReplyScoreID@ 216.168.3.30: Jeronimus added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... 5 pictures showing a skutsje (or barge) tacking. In this view, it looks something like a blunt-nosed schooner. What makes a "skutsje" different than a simple schooner, other than the apparent capacity to carry more weight for, perhaps, a commercial purpose? Thanks. Just trying to edumacate myself ... A skustje has a flat bottom with a very shallow draught (i think app. 30 centimeters (1 foot), which allows it to sail into even the shallowest waters (either by sail, or drawn by horses or crew). Upwind performance is created by the side-blades (don't know what they are called in english). 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, Jeroen "Leeboards" is the usual English term for the "sideboards" -- Bill Collins For email, change "fake" to "earthlink" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
On Wed, 07 May 2008 08:47:33 -0400, Bill wrote:
In article 3, Jeronimus wrote: "HEMI-Powered" wrote in news:Xns9A97344983C0EReplyScoreID@ 216.168.3.30: Jeronimus added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... 5 pictures showing a skutsje (or barge) tacking. In this view, it looks something like a blunt-nosed schooner. What makes a "skutsje" different than a simple schooner, other than the apparent capacity to carry more weight for, perhaps, a commercial purpose? Thanks. Just trying to edumacate myself ... A skustje has a flat bottom with a very shallow draught (i think app. 30 centimeters (1 foot), which allows it to sail into even the shallowest waters (either by sail, or drawn by horses or crew). Upwind performance is created by the side-blades (don't know what they are called in english). 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, Jeroen "Leeboards" is the usual English term for the "sideboards" I have heard the term sidboards too. |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"Jeronimus" schreef in bericht 3.133... A skustje has a flat bottom with a very shallow draught (i think app. 30 centimeters (1 foot), which allows it to sail into even the shallowest waters (either by sail, or drawn by horses or crew). Upwind performance is created by the side-blades (don't know what they are called in english). 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. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"Bill" schreef in bericht ... A skustje has a flat bottom with a very shallow draught (i think app. 30 centimeters (1 foot), which allows it to sail into even the shallowest waters (either by sail, or drawn by horses or crew). Upwind performance is created by the side-blades (don't know what they are called in english). 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, Jeroen "Leeboards" is the usual English term for the "sideboards" You're right Bill. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
A skustje has a flat bottom with a very shallow draught (i think app. 30 centimeters (1 foot), which allows it to sail into even the shallowest waters (either by sail, or drawn by horses or crew). Upwind performance is created by the side-blades (don't know what they are called in english). 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, Jeroen "Leeboards" is the usual English term for the "sideboards" You're right Bill. I've heard of "sideboards" but not "leeboards", although the little I do know of nautical terms makes that term also sensible. -- HEMI - Powered, aka Jerry "You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
"Jeronimus" schreef in bericht 3.133... A skustje has a flat bottom with a very shallow draught (i think app. 30 centimeters (1 foot), which allows it to sail into even the shallowest waters (either by sail, or drawn by horses or crew). Upwind performance is created by the side-blades (don't know what they are called in english). 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. 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. 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. -- HP, aka Jerry "Most people with power would like to use it wisely, if someone believable would tell them how", Robert Townsend in the book "Up The Organization" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
1 Attachment(s)
"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht ... Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... Maybe Bouler knows some more, it's his favorite ship if I'm right... Regards, Jeroen "Leeboards" is the usual English term for the "sideboards" You're right Bill. I've heard of "sideboards" but not "leeboards", although the little I do know of nautical terms makes that term also sensible. The Dutch word is "zwaard" and my dictionary gives as translation leeboards. They are only used at the lee-side of the ship for not drifting away to much if there is a lot of wind. The put the leeboard as deep in the water as possible. Search on "leeboard" on Google Jerry;-) Here a small picture I found on the internet to see how ftlatbottoms can be aground with now a problem at low tide. I think this ship is a "Boeier", there are a lot of differend flatbottoms in The Netherlands with all their specific names. I by far dont know them all. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:51:05 +0200, "Bouler"
wrote: "HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht . .. Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... Maybe Bouler knows some more, it's his favorite ship if I'm right... Regards, Jeroen "Leeboards" is the usual English term for the "sideboards" You're right Bill. I've heard of "sideboards" but not "leeboards", although the little I do know of nautical terms makes that term also sensible. The Dutch word is "zwaard" and my dictionary gives as translation leeboards. They are only used at the lee-side of the ship for not drifting away to much if there is a lot of wind. The put the leeboard as deep in the water as possible. Search on "leeboard" on Google Jerry;-) Here a small picture I found on the internet to see how ftlatbottoms can be aground with now a problem at low tide. I think this ship is a "Boeier", there are a lot of differend flatbottoms in The Netherlands with all their specific names. I by far dont know them all. For a second there, I thought it was him, walking on water. :o) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"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;-( 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;-) -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"joevan" schreef in bericht ... The Dutch word is "zwaard" and my dictionary gives as translation leeboards. They are only used at the lee-side of the ship for not drifting away to much if there is a lot of wind. The put the leeboard as deep in the water as possible. Search on "leeboard" on Google Jerry;-) Here a small picture I found on the internet to see how ftlatbottoms can be aground with now a problem at low tide. I think this ship is a "Boeier", there are a lot of differend flatbottoms in The Netherlands with all their specific names. I by far dont know them all. For a second there, I thought it was him, walking on water. :o) LOL;-) -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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 ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"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) |
Link Titanic disaster
"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) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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 |
Link Titanic disaster
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 ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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 |
Link Titanic disaster
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 ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
Jeronimus added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
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, I don't think I contributed much except perhaps to provide the catalyst for some interesting discussion. Like you, though, I have learned a lot and will likely learn more about the Titanic once Bouler has a chance to respond. -- HP, aka Jerry "You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"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 |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht ... 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). You're very well informed. 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. I had the feeling I was stimulating you in this case and I as rightgrin 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. Very smart after all;-) Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion. A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost nothing. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
Link Titanic disaster
"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) |
Link Titanic disaster
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 ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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 ****!" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
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). You're very well informed. Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have to admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly lacking. I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a year or so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week, I think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself, and results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think began in 2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather hazy about that, please help me out if you can). 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. I had the feeling I was stimulating you in this case and I as rightgrin Maybe I should have put in a grin or two of my own, but each of us is gifted in different ways. Perhaps one of mine to compensate for lack of foreign language skills is what people tell me is a logical mind and an insatiable appetite for new information. In fact, it has been a basic philosphy of mine back at least to my High School days as a teen-ager that learning is a life-long endeavor. Unfortunately, ALL of my classmates in Engineering School were like me and I suddently found myself as a brand new freshman in 1965 going from top 5% in my H.S. class to about the bottom 5-10% and on academic probation for 3 trimesters. One more and I'd have flunked out. Still in all, I barely made it, I recall something like only a 2.32 or so GPA. Lots of pretty smart men and women go to engineering school and the admissions process we used here prior to affirmative action initiatives guaranteed that only the best of the best got in. Now, with THAT as the statistical "population" upon which grades are "curved", it isn't hard to see that I might've been able to understand what the hell was happening and still damn near flunk out! But, that's as it should be, I suppose. Who'd want cars or buildings or ships designed by engineers who are pretty damn dumb? So, knowing how tough it was for me as an undergraduate made it crystal clear that I could not earn even a master's degree or earn Michigan Professional Engineer's Certificate. 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. Very smart after all;-) Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion. A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost nothing. I agree. Just like the gun slinger days of the old American West, where there was ALWAYS someone faster on the draw, there is always someone smarter than you and wealthier than you. But, there is also at least one person dumber and poorer than you, also! grin here, no insult intended Seriously, one of my favorite saying from the Dirty Harry cop movies is "a man's GOT to know his limitations", that is, be humble one can NEVER know it all, no matter how hard or long one tries, because the colllective body of knowledge on even a narrow subject is exploding so fast. -- HP, aka Jerry "You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!" |
Link Titanic disaster
3 Attachment(s)
"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) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht ... You're very well informed. Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have to admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly lacking. The same problem I have Jerry, its a hobby and all the technical stuff is difficult for a teacher espechially in English. I never worked with ships cars or other technical stuff, so you much more technical with your history at Chryslers I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a year or so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week, I think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself, and results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think began in 2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather hazy about that, please help me out if you can). Sorry Jerry I cant. 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. I had the feeling I was stimulating you in this case and I as rightgrin Maybe I should have put in a grin or two of my own, but each of us is gifted in different ways. Perhaps one of mine to compensate for lack of foreign language skills is what people tell me is a logical mind and an insatiable appetite for new information. In fact, it has been a basic philosphy of mine back at least to my High School days as a teen-ager that learning is a life-long endeavor. Unfortunately, ALL of my classmates in Engineering School were like me and I suddently found myself as a brand new freshman in 1965 going from top 5% in my H.S. class to about the bottom 5-10% and on academic probation for 3 trimesters. One more and I'd have flunked out. Still in all, I barely made it, I recall something like only a 2.32 or so GPA. Could you explain that, we have a comlete other schoolsystem, so I don't have a clue what 2,32 GPA means. The only thing thats clear is that you had to work hard to graduate, so we can shake hands. I completely agree that learning is a life-long endeavor, for you, for me because we are interested in a lot of things. Not everybody thinks the same way. Lots of pretty smart men and women go to engineering school and the admissions process we used here prior to affirmative action initiatives guaranteed that only the best of the best got in. Thats life Jerry, for my school to study for teacher there were 120 people that want that study at that specific school, after a starting examination only 48, the maximum the school could handle got that chance I I was one of them. Now, with THAT as the statistical "population" upon which grades are "curved", it isn't hard to see that I might've been able to understand what the hell was happening and still damn near flunk out! But, that's as it should be, I suppose. Who'd want cars or buildings or ships designed by engineers who are pretty damn dumb? So, knowing how tough it was for me as an undergraduate made it crystal clear that I could not earn even a master's degree or earn Michigan Professional Engineer's Certificate. I understand but I think we get far off topic this should fit better in an e-mail. 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. Very smart after all;-) Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion. A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost nothing. I agree. Just like the gun slinger days of the old American West, where there was ALWAYS someone faster on the draw, there is always someone smarter than you and wealthier than you. But, there is also at least one person dumber and poorer than you, also! grin here, no insult intended Seriously, one of my favorite saying from the Dirty Harry cop movies is "a man's GOT to know his limitations", that is, be humble one can NEVER know it all, no matter how hard or long one tries, because the colllective body of knowledge on even a narrow subject is exploding so fast. I think that was the best Dirty Harry ever said and I agree completely. Yes I know those movies from Clint Eastwood, I think he is in politics now. Now I think I need some sleep, its 4.30 AM;-) -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
Link Titanic disaster
"Bouler" wrote in message ... "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. They're called Pop Rivets here in the US of A. And as to fixing the sheet metal on a car, they are only used by "backyard mechanics" to do quick repairs so they can sell the car fast. And Bouler, your English is just fine. I just wish mine was half as good and English is my first and only language. wizofwas |
Link Titanic disaster
"wizofwas" schreef in bericht ... 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. They're called Pop Rivets here in the US of A. And as to fixing the sheet metal on a car, they are only used by "backyard mechanics" to do quick repairs so they can sell the car fast. Thanks, In the Netherlands its forbidden to use them in cars. If you buy a car with pop rivets even if you didn't know, you have to fix it proprly or you lose your car if the police checks your car.. And Bouler, your English is just fine. I just wish mine was half as good and English is my first and only language. Thanks for the compliment wizofwas (special nick;-) -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"HEMI - Powered" wrote in message ... Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... 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). You're very well informed. Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have to admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly lacking. I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a year or so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week, I think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself, and results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think began in 2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather hazy about that, please help me out if you can). If it's the episode I'm thinking of where they found a 60 Foot(?) section of the keel that was separated from the rest of the two pieces of the ship. This section of the keel was from the middle of the ship, and it broke away from the stresses that was placed on it, thus allowing the Titanic to break into the two pieces and sink much faster than it normally would have. It's been a while since I've seen that episode, but that's what I remember from it. wizofwas |
Link Titanic disaster
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" |
Link Titanic disaster
wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
[big snip] 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. They're called Pop Rivets here in the US of A. And as to fixing the sheet metal on a car, they are only used by "backyard mechanics" to do quick repairs so they can sell the car fast. Yes, I talked about pop rivets in my reply just sent. I rarely see them on exterior sheet metal of cars or even on inside panels because they are what you say - used only by backyard mechanics and collision shops looking to shave bucks at the expense of correct repair. That said, people with aging cars often use pop rivets to keep dangling front and rear fascias, i.e., the plastic bumpers now in vogue, from falling off after a fender bender and people use them to reattach interior trim panels.But these are not good applications and pop rivets shouldn't be used anywhere that safety or structural integrity is important. And Bouler, your English is just fine. I just wish mine was half as good and English is my first and only language. Agree strongly, wiz! Bouler's English is quite good and is even good enough to catch me in embarrassing usage mistakes because I'm getting lazy in my old age. grin Seriously, my language skills, especially technical writing, spelling, grammar, etc. have deteriorated badly since I've retired. Not much call for technical reports in private life! -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
Link Titanic disaster
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
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. They're called Pop Rivets here in the US of A. And as to fixing the sheet metal on a car, they are only used by "backyard mechanics" to do quick repairs so they can sell the car fast. Thanks, In the Netherlands its forbidden to use them in cars. If you buy a car with pop rivets even if you didn't know, you have to fix it proprly or you lose your car if the police checks your car.. I'm not surprised that you have strong vehicle safety laws. I had to have a number of expensive repairs made to the car I owned while I was in the Army before the police inspector would pass it for a sale to a new owner. We once had emissions inspections in many states here in the USA but they were weak and ineffective and were repealed. We don't have ANY safety inspections I am aware of but we should as I see many cars driving around with very obvious safety defects and it makes me wonder what is hidden from view that might make the car dangerous to its occupants and to others on the road, including me. I've talked about pop rivets a couple of times now but I agree that they are inherently dangerous when used in safety-critical areas of a car or places where high strength in a collision or high-speed maneuver are important. And Bouler, your English is just fine. I just wish mine was half as good and English is my first and only language. Thanks for the compliment wizofwas (special nick;-) -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
You're very well informed. Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have to admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly lacking. The same problem I have Jerry, its a hobby and all the technical stuff is difficult for a teacher espechially in English. I never worked with ships cars or other technical stuff, so you much more technical with your history at Chryslers Bouler, it has been said that anyone can give an hour talk on any subject, even one they know nothing at all about. But, to give an effective 15 minute talk or to distill a complex and technical subject down to only 5 minutes, both of which I had to do on my job, is VERY difficult indeed. I most appreciate the complements you extend to me on my knowledge of cars and other things. However, there is likely far LESS here than meets the eye, meaning that while I can speak reasonably intelligently about all cars, not just Chrysler, I cannot speak to specifics of even cars designed during my tenure at Chrysler. The reason I can at least speak to most anything vehicular regardless of company or national origin is that the basics of the vehicle product development process from design (styling) to engineering to testing to tooling to manufacturing and assembly is pretty much universal throughout the world. What separates the better car companies from the 2nd and 3rd tier crowd is how well they APPLY basic principles and how much proprietary knowledge they can accumulate and effectively implement to increase features, fuel economy, safety, etc. while at the same time increasing quality, reliability, and durability (those are 3 different things, ask if interested) at the lowest possible cost. I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a year or so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week, I think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself, and results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think began in 2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather hazy about that, please help me out if you can). Sorry Jerry I cant. OK, if these shows come on again, I'll try to snag them and perhaps I can mail you a DVD of something you may not have seen in The Netherlands. Maybe I should have put in a grin or two of my own, but each of us is gifted in different ways. Perhaps one of mine to compensate for lack of foreign language skills is what people tell me is a logical mind and an insatiable appetite for new information. In fact, it has been a basic philosphy of mine back at least to my High School days as a teen-ager that learning is a life-long endeavor. Unfortunately, ALL of my classmates in Engineering School were like me and I suddently found myself as a brand new freshman in 1965 going from top 5% in my H.S. class to about the bottom 5-10% and on academic probation for 3 trimesters. One more and I'd have flunked out. Still in all, I barely made it, I recall something like only a 2.32 or so GPA. Could you explain that, we have a comlete other schoolsystem, so I don't have a clue what 2,32 GPA means. Sorry, I did it again, damnit! GPA means Grade Point Average. We use a 4.0 grading system in community colleges and universities where 0.0 is an E or F, 0.5 is barely passing maybe with a D-, 2.0 is a C, 3.0 is a B and 4.0 is an A. My school, Oakland University, used a 4.3 system where 4.3 was essentially an A+. I hope your schools at least use a similar letter grading system. To recap, American schools are basically organized this way: K-6 (Kindergarten through 6th grade) is called "elementary school, grades 7 and 8 "middle school" and 9-12 "high school." Colleges and universities are divided into "undergraduate" which means one hasn't yet earned the most basic degree, a bachelor of science or bachelor or arts, and "graduate" degrees which include a masters or PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) and also MD (Medical Doctor), DDS (Doctor of Dental Surgery), and LLD (Letter of Law Doctorate, I think, i.e., an attorney. So, under my university's grading system, I graduated barely above the minimum necessary, a 2.0, with what amounted to be a low C+. The only thing thats clear is that you had to work hard to graduate, so we can shake hands. I completely agree that learning is a life-long endeavor, for you, for me because we are interested in a lot of things. Not everybody thinks the same way. Yeah, I worked my skinny ass off, Bouler! Here's what one of my days was like: I'd get up early, eat a breakfast of oatmeal or bacon and eggs, finish up any homework and commute to school Go to school and study on campus until early afternoon, return home, eat a fast dinner and go to work in a department store from 5-9 PM to earn gas money and money to go on dates with girls. Then, study until about midnight or when I fell asleep at the kitchen table. On weekends, I'd date, have fun with my friends, go cruising to try to pick up girls or maybe engage in drag racing at night while working Saturday and Sunday 8 hours and studying in whatever time was left besides sleeping. The goal for me was two-fold: earn a degree that would enable me to try for a high-paying job (which is why I chose engineering which is still the highest paying job with a B.S. degree, the most I hoped to attain) and stay out of the Army and a rice paddy in Viet Nam at least long enough to earn my degree. Our draft system believed that having a college degree, especially a technical one, was an important asset militarily even if one did not become an officer (I was an enlisted man, coming out a sergeant with 3 stripes after 20 months), so we had a system of student deferrments that allowed only 4 years for college. So, I HAD to get it done. I started work the next day after commencement and fought the draft for about a year and lost. But, as it turned out while Army life was hardly fun at the time, I DID get a chance to tour much of southern Europe and the experience of being completely on my own matured me greatly and turned out to be quite useful in my later career. Lots of pretty smart men and women go to engineering school and the admissions process we used here prior to affirmative action initiatives guaranteed that only the best of the best got in. Thats life Jerry, for my school to study for teacher there were 120 people that want that study at that specific school, after a starting examination only 48, the maximum the school could handle got that chance I I was one of them. I did not have to take the standard testing of the day, such as the SAT (Scholasitic Appitude Test) as a senior in High School, but my grades and a recommendation from my counselor, principle, and at least one teacher were required. Then, I had to compete against all other applicants based on the number of freshman class openings. Once accepted, I spent two entire days of mathematics and English aptitude written testing, one day for each. Talk about difficult! Wow! My English scores were OK but my math score was barely passing. My advisor told me that if I actually cut it and graduated I would be the first in his experience with a math aptitude that low. That sobered me up - fast! He helped me a great deal through the many tank traps along the way such as scheduling conflicts and getting me into the lesser difficulty liberal arts classes that were required beyond what were called "core curriculum" for my engineering school degree. I don't know what the numbers were at my college as I didn't have access to the number of applicants nor the number who failed to make the cut on the 2-day testing gig, but I would suspect it was similary to your experience. My engineering class itself was small, maybe 40 or 50 (I've always wished that OU had a yearbook, but they didn't) and I think they all managed to graduate. That I know of, my ranking was 4th from the bottom, or maybe 5th, but no higher. The class was divided along lines of intelligence and grades informally. The smart guys studied together and refusted to help us not so smart guys because they wanted us to get lousy grades so the "curve", or statistical grading system to decide the numeric score you're probably familiary with is helped by the number of people on a test that score below the statistical median or mean and skew the grade distribution to the low end making it easier to earn a 3.0 or 4.0. Very smart after all;-) Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion. A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost nothing. I agree. Just like the gun slinger days of the old American West, where there was ALWAYS someone faster on the draw, there is always someone smarter than you and wealthier than you. But, there is also at least one person dumber and poorer than you, also! grin here, no insult intended Seriously, one of my favorite saying from the Dirty Harry cop movies is "a man's GOT to know his limitations", that is, be humble one can NEVER know it all, no matter how hard or long one tries, because the colllective body of knowledge on even a narrow subject is exploding so fast. I think that was the best Dirty Harry ever said and I agree completely. Yes I know those movies from Clint Eastwood, I think he is in politics now. Now I think I need some sleep, its 4.30 AM;-) Most people like his other quotes, basically "this is a .44 Magnum and will blow you head clean off, now do you feel lucky? well, do you, punk?" Yeah, that's OK, but I liked the other one because it was useful in real-life and not just cop movies. It is interestint that you are familiar with the Dirty Harry series. It was a money maker but not an award-winning movie. I often use movies to illustrate things to you and others and I wonder a lot if my international friends know what the hell I'm talking about! grin -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
[snip] You're very well informed. Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have to admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly lacking. I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a year or so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week, I think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself, and results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think began in 2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather hazy about that, please help me out if you can). If it's the episode I'm thinking of where they found a 60 Foot(?) section of the keel that was separated from the rest of the two pieces of the ship. This section of the keel was from the middle of the ship, and it broke away from the stresses that was placed on it, thus allowing the Titanic to break into the two pieces and sink much faster than it normally would have. It's been a while since I've seen that episode, but that's what I remember from it. That's the one, wizofwas! THC has compiled 3 or 4 special episodes of various aspects of the Titanic sinking, from the design and building of the ship to eyewitness accounts to the court trials to early investigates and on down to the more recent investigations after the wreakage was finally located. I'm going to take a SWAG and say that it wasn't positively located until the late 1990s and not successfully dived by miniature submarine until the early 2000s. I don't know the last dive date, but I have a vague recollection it was 2005. If you or anyone can list the chrononology of the sinking and subsequent investigations, I would sure be beholding! I talked briefly about the proof that Titanic broke in half in an earlier post but as I recall that THC episode, a marine structural engineer used CAE and computer simulation based on eyewitness accounts to calculate the rate of sinking and the probably angle of the hull as it quickly went down by the bow also accounting for the effects of the bilge pumps which obviously could not keep up. One episode I recall asserted that engineering analysis predicted that the angle of descent, which recall to be in the 11 degree range, would be sufficient to break the hull between I think stacks 2 and 3, about in the middle or slightly forward of the middle BEFORE the first successful dive found the wreakage scattered over a several mile field. Also, I recall the same engineer saying that the angle of descent could not have been greater than about 6-8 deg. for the hull NOT to have broken in half. It's tought getting old, isn't it, wiz? You and I both suffer from "it's been awhile since I've seen that" syndrome which necessitates being a bit timid and humble about asserting "facts" without going back and re-watching an episode or doing some Googling first. Good discussion, thanks for the input! -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
Link Titanic disaster
"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht ... Thanks, In the Netherlands its forbidden to use them in cars. If you buy a car with pop rivets even if you didn't know, you have to fix it proprly or you lose your car if the police checks your car.. I'm not surprised that you have strong vehicle safety laws. I had to have a number of expensive repairs made to the car I owned while I was in the Army before the police inspector would pass it for a sale to a new owner. We once had emissions inspections in many states here in the USA but they were weak and ineffective and were repealed. We don't have ANY safety inspections I am aware of but we should as I see many cars driving around with very obvious safety defects and it makes me wonder what is hidden from view that might make the car dangerous to its occupants and to others on the road, including me. I've talked about pop rivets a couple of times now but I agree that they are inherently dangerous when used in safety-critical areas of a car or places where high strength in a collision or high-speed maneuver are important. In The Netherlands every car older than 3 year has to be checked every year by a garage who has their qualifications to do so. So every year in September I hope my 16 years old Renault 19 will make it. If something is wrong it has to be fixed, if not you may not drive that car anymore. I think its a good thing, you don't see rusty vehicles on the road any more. -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
Link Titanic disaster
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
I've talked about pop rivets a couple of times now but I agree that they are inherently dangerous when used in safety-critical areas of a car or places where high strength in a collision or high-speed maneuver are important. In The Netherlands every car older than 3 year has to be checked every year by a garage who has their qualifications to do so. So every year in September I hope my 16 years old Renault 19 will make it. If something is wrong it has to be fixed, if not you may not drive that car anymore. I think its a good thing, you don't see rusty vehicles on the road any more. I somewhat often see cars so crappy they are actually a danger to those around them. Bald tires, fascias hanging literally, smoke pouring out the tailpipe, everything. Sad. -- HP, aka Jerry "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" |
Link Titanic disaster
"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht ... 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". Yes I know, but sometimes I'm only human and make mistakesgrin 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. It was me who made the first mistake to use wrote in stead of read;-) 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. I completely understood the above and rememberd he horrible view of that disaster on TV. Als I see you're very accurate and logic in explaining the problem. I think its the same accuracy you use in engineering cars. Ik don't have that background with cars nor with ships so I'm not an expert on nautical things, I just love ships.. 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. I get used to your technical jargon (Learning fast because I want to kwow what you're writing) My dictionnary was my friend the last days;-) Important is I need not to know all the words to undrstand you. Combining and a little logic helps a lot. 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. I'm glad to stand on my feeth again, when you were talking that I wrote that article I was sitting on a cloud for a while but fell off and that hurts grin 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 Feeding yourself is very important so I can imagine this sentece was a lifesavergrin 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. nagel=nail in English so it's understandeble. 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. Ok, but you spend energy to learn stuff t make yourself and other people working as a team, I respect that very much. Is CAD Computer aided design or has it something to do with the computerprogram autocad? 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. Well that makes you standing on your feeth again IMO, I thought you did know everything of cars. I worked a lot on all the secondhand cars I bought, I came very far with the mecanical stuff, but todays cars you cannot do anything as an amateur. Far to much electronic in cars and thats not my specialty. 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. I know them. 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. Right and working on a car need special tools so fixing a car by myself is almost over and out. 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. Yes I mean hypotatical and dont know if its used in ships. 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. You're examening the consequences, I like that. 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. My knowledge of ships is not much more than yours, I mostly dont go into technicak stuff, I like to see a nice ship and can enjoy it. 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. I'm learning fast Jerry. 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. You're a very clever man, you're apoligizing before I can even say somethinggrin But you have nothing to apologize for Jerry you're smart enough to build in a lot of caution. If we are goïng on this way we're writing a book together;-) -- Greetings Bouler (The Netherlands) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com