FREE TAPATALK APP

Thunder · 22nd September 2010, 01:24 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100922/...n_titanic_book

fascinating.

in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false.

and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false.

Gawdzilla · 22nd September 2010, 01:38 PM

How it REALLY happened.

Piscivore · 22nd September 2010, 01:41 PM

I thought the Titanic sank due to a great many human errors.

RobRoy · 22nd September 2010, 01:42 PM

Heard this on NPR, but no other experts came froward to support this theory.

Louise Patten, a writer and granddaughter of Titanic second officer Charles Lightoller, said the truth about what happened nearly 100 years ago had been hidden for fear of tarnishing the reputation of her grandfather, who later became a war hero.

Well, maybe. I'll wait for someone else, who is more than just a "writer and granddaughter" to provide testimony.

Gawdzilla · 22nd September 2010, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I thought the Titanic sank due to a great many human errors.

It doesn't take a lot when you're floating in a bubble of air on the surface of an ocean. I spent 20 years in the USN and I know this empirically.

Agatha · 22nd September 2010, 02:03 PM

First Officer Murdoch gave the order hard-a-starboard (the correct order) to turn the ship to port. The ship turned to port and the iceberg hit the ship on the starboard side. It is conjectured that had the ship continued and hit the iceberg head-on, it would not have sunk; but one can never be sure of what might have been.

Second Officer Lightoller testified that he was in his cabin with his light out, just going to sleep, at the moment of the collision, and that he went to the port side of the boat rather than the bridge when he got up, then to starboard, and then to the bridge.

Since Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, I doubt that the orders given and the course of the ship would have had any bearing on Lightoller's reputation.

RobRoy · 22nd September 2010, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

First Officer Murdoch gave the order hard-a-starboard (the correct order) to turn the ship to port. The ship turned to port and the iceberg hit the ship on the starboard side. It is conjectured that had the ship continued and hit the iceberg head-on, it would not have sunk; but one can never be sure of what might have been.

Second Officer Lightoller testified that he was in his cabin with his light out, just going to sleep, at the moment of the collision, and that he went to the port side of the boat rather than the bridge when he got up, then to starboard, and then to the bridge.

Since Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, I doubt that the orders given and the course of the ship would have had any bearing on Lightoller's reputation.

And there we have it.

Agatha · 22nd September 2010, 02:40 PM

Pesky facts, so inconvenient when someone wants to sell books/cash in on an ancestor's claim to fame.

RobRoy · 22nd September 2010, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

Pesky facts, so inconvenient when someone wants to sell books/cash in on an ancestor's claim to fame.

This was exactly what I thought when I heard the report this morning. I've read and heard rather consistent stories on how the Titanic went down, so I figured if this was an Earth-shattering revelation that re-wrote history, there would have been more to it. Since there wasn't, I pretty much discounted it as a writer trying to make a buck. Can't fault her there, but there it is.

quadraginta · 22nd September 2010, 03:04 PM

I always thought that Jamie Brockett had the real low-down.

Part 1.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and Part 2.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

fuelair · 22nd September 2010, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

How it REALLY happened.

Truly lovely!!!

BaaBaa · 22nd September 2010, 05:43 PM

According to my grandma, my 3X great granduncle was Captain Smith.

smellincoffee · 22nd September 2010, 11:35 PM

The only believeable thing I've heard is that Lighttoller wanted to protect the White Star line. I've read his account and he was QUITE proud to serve in the Merchant Marine and the White Star line, where sailors and officers were taught to think on their feet.

I've read three other primary accounts -- one from an American historian (Col. Gracie), one from a science and technology instructor (Lawrence Beasley), and one from a Marconi operator (Bride, I think) -- and haven't heard anything that matches what she's saying.

I think she's trying to raise a fuss to get publicity attention for her book...we are within a couple of years of the 100th anniversary.

DC · 23rd September 2010, 12:15 AM

i thought it was because of that huge hole in the boat

Dave Rogers · 23rd September 2010, 01:01 AM

Wasn't Captain Smith's order to steam at full speed ahead, at night, in an area where icebergs had already been reported, enough of a human error in the first place?

Dave

Undesired Walrus · 23rd September 2010, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100922/...n_titanic_book

fascinating.

in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false.

and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false.

And in the movie, a great actor makes a dreadful mistake by appearing in such an awful film. That one, unfortunately, is true.

Eddie Dane · 23rd September 2010, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by DC

i thought it was because of that huge hole in the boat

Nonsense!

Isn't it about time we did away with this ridiculous 'big hole in boat'-theory?
The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat.

Garrette · 23rd September 2010, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Nonsense!

Isn't it about time we did away with this ridiculous 'big hole in boat'-theory?
The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat.

The ocean is a dangerous thing and should be regulated. Without it, the rate of ocean liner sinkings would be near to zero.

Cleon · 23rd September 2010, 06:26 AM

As it happens, the hole wasn't actually all that big. It was just long.

Dave Rogers · 23rd September 2010, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat.

And yet, it didn't sink the ship when it was outside it. Are we supposed to believe that moving it to the inside - a distance of a few inches - was enough to sink an ocean liner 880 feet long?

Dave

MG1962 · 23rd September 2010, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

First Officer Murdoch gave the order hard-a-starboard (the correct order) to turn the ship to port. The ship turned to port and the iceberg hit the ship on the starboard side. It is conjectured that had the ship continued and hit the iceberg head-on, it would not have sunk; but one can never be sure of what might have been.

Second Officer Lightoller testified that he was in his cabin with his light out, just going to sleep, at the moment of the collision, and that he went to the port side of the boat rather than the bridge when he got up, then to starboard, and then to the bridge.

Since Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, I doubt that the orders given and the course of the ship would have had any bearing on Lightoller's reputation.

I would have to disagree. The ship was put into reverse which means the water flow over the rudder was reversed, meaning to make a true starboard turn the vessel should have put to starboard

If they had ordered full stop of the engines, let the ship coast, the rudder would have had more bite and possibly saved the ship

Also - and no sailor would think this way - hitting the berg head on probably would have saved the ship

arthwollipot · 23rd September 2010, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false.

Wait, it took you this long to realise it?

Originally Posted by Thunder

and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false.

Woah! Wait a minute. You actually thought that the movie was accurate???

DC · 23rd September 2010, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And yet, it didn't sink the ship when it was outside it. Are we supposed to believe that moving it to the inside - a distance of a few inches - was enough to sink an ocean liner 880 feet long?

Dave

roflmao

The Central Scrutinizer · 23rd September 2010, 08:17 AM

It was a second gunman on the icey knoll.

Eddie Dane · 23rd September 2010, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And yet, it didn't sink the ship when it was outside it. Are we supposed to believe that moving it to the inside - a distance of a few inches - was enough to sink an ocean liner 880 feet long?

Dave

Maybe we can get a Truther to re-enact the accident in his bathtub with a milk carton and some ice-cubes.

I smell Youtube gold in this one.

Rincewind · 23rd September 2010, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And yet, it didn't sink the ship when it was outside it. Are we supposed to believe that moving it to the inside - a distance of a few inches - was enough to sink an ocean liner 880 feet long?

Dave

Ah - damn these unsinkable ships!

Wasn't the Yamato also supposed to be unsinkable?

Or was that just in the film Tora! Tora! Tora! ?

Safe-Keeper · 23rd September 2010, 08:31 AM

It also sunk at free-fall speed. No ship of that size has ever sunk that fast from an ice berg before.

Agatha · 23rd September 2010, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I would have to disagree. The ship was put into reverse which means the water flow over the rudder was reversed, meaning to make a true starboard turn the vessel should have put to starboard

If they had ordered full stop of the engines, let the ship coast, the rudder would have had more bite and possibly saved the ship

Also - and no sailor would think this way - hitting the berg head on probably would have saved the ship

The inquiry found that the ship's head had gone round to port and testimony was that the order was given to hard-a-starboard to make the port turn, and that the engines were switched to full astern. http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq...pCollision.php I agree that running into the iceberg, which may have saved the ship, would never have been a likely choice. The iceberg was only about 500 yards from the ship when it was seen, and the warning sounded, and at the Titanic's speed she therefore hit it roughly 37 seconds after the warning.

Mister Earl · 23rd September 2010, 08:44 AM

The sinking of the Titanic is obviously caused by the sudden and drastic increase in weight due to all the time-travelers arriving to witness that moment in history.

ElMondoHummus · 23rd September 2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

It doesn't take a lot when you're floating in a bubble of air on the surface of an ocean. I spent 20 years in the USN and I know this empirically.

That's a lie! If you knew this empirically, you wouldn't be here to tell us about it!

Kidding... I'm kidding... it's a joke...

Gawdzilla · 23rd September 2010, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

That's a lie! If you knew this empirically, you wouldn't be here to tell us about it!

Kidding... I'm kidding... it's a joke...

I knew that.

I killed a couple of women and kids to get a spot in a life boat.

Noztradamus · 23rd September 2010, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat.

Nonsense !
~~~~~
Nonsense back at you! I saw the movie. When water enters a ship it is no longer icy. Those people would not have survived if the water was still icy.

Confirmation: when Jack was out in the open water, he died. (And there was much rejoicing)

RobRoy · 23rd September 2010, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Confirmation: when Jack was out in the open water, he died. (And there was much rejoicing)

Negative. I cried. I'm crying as I write this.

SpitfireIX · 23rd September 2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100922/...n_titanic_book

fascinating.

in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false.

and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false.

Whether Quartermaster Hitchens made a fatal mistake is probably unknowable (though it strikes me as unlikely), but the claim about the 10 minutes of "ahead slow" causing any significant additional damage or flooding is demonstrably incorrect.

http://titanic-model.com/articles/So...uare_Feet2.pdf

Quote:

Assuming the ship was moved forward at slow speed ahead which corresponded to about 8 knots (about 30 revolutions on her reciprocating engines with the turbine disengaged). Eight knots is 13.5 feet per second. The added pressure due to forward motion is turns out to be equivalent to a pressure head of 2.85 feet, an increase of only 11.4% over the elevation pressure head of 25 feet. This is the ram affect caused by forward movement of the ship. The initial rate of flooding at t=0 would increase by only 5.5%, or 14 tons per second instead of 13.3 tons per second. And all this assumes that our 12 square feet of damage was straight across the bow and not along the side of the ship. For damage along the side the situation is much more complex because of the changing streamlines of the water flow past the hull. Near the bow there would be an increased pressure where the streamlines curve away from the centerline of the ship. Further back the pressure will decrease as the streamlines bend the other way trying to parallel the ships centerline again. It becomes a very complex problem to solve analytically. But what we can say is that the flooding will be far less than the case which we have considered where the damage is directly across the bow.

The bottom line in all of this is that the forward movement of the Titanic that took place after the initial stopping of the vessel could not have significantly contributed very much to the overall flooding situation if the movement did not continue for any significant length of time at any appreciable speed. [notes omitted]

alfaniner · 23rd September 2010, 11:47 AM

Too bad the helmsman never saw Cars or Tokyo Drift.

Pope130 · 23rd September 2010, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I would have to disagree. The ship was put into reverse which means the water flow over the rudder was reversed, meaning to make a true starboard turn the vessel should have put to starboard

If they had ordered full stop of the engines, let the ship coast, the rudder would have had more bite and possibly saved the ship.

Actually the flow across the rudder didn't reverse. The Olympic class had three screws, each with it's own engine. The outboard engines were conventional triple reduction piston engines, which were reversible. The center engine was a turbine that ran off the exhaust steam from the piston engines, it was not reversible. When the mains were thrown into reverse the center engine stopped receiving steam and (by normal procedure) would be braked. This would cause a disruption of the flow over the rudder, but not a reversal.

Tests made with the RMS Olympic after the loss of Titanic showed that a smaller turning circle could be achieved by reducing the power, rather than reversing it. The smallest turn was achieved by reversing the engine on the inside of the turn, and running the outboard and center at maximum, with the rudder hard over.

MG1962 · 23rd September 2010, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

The inquiry found that the ship's head had gone round to port and testimony was that the order was given to hard-a-starboard to make the port turn, and that the engines were switched to full astern. http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq...pCollision.php I agree that running into the iceberg, which may have saved the ship, would never have been a likely choice. The iceberg was only about 500 yards from the ship when it was seen, and the warning sounded, and at the Titanic's speed she therefore hit it roughly 37 seconds after the warning.

Interesting Pope pointed out the center screw didn't actually reverse but stopped and the out board screws went into reverse......Which blows my theory out of the water

MG1962 · 23rd September 2010, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Pope130

Tests made with the RMS Olympic after the loss of Titanic showed that a smaller turning circle could be achieved by reducing the power, rather than reversing it. The smallest turn was achieved by reversing the engine on the inside of the turn, and running the outboard and center at maximum, with the rudder hard over.

Did they offer a time frame for achieving this?

Finn McR · 23rd September 2010, 10:08 PM

It has been proven that any vessel transiting the Norther Atlantic in iceberg season carrying Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, *and* Billy Zane will definitely sink!! What other proof do you need??

They *did it* in a car! Zomg! It was soo romantic!

Also, this was pre-Liberty Ships. Metallurgy was not so good...

Noztradamus · 23rd September 2010, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Pope130

Actually the flow across the rudder didn't reverse. The Olympic class had three screws, each with it's own engine. The outboard engines were conventional triple reduction piston engines, which were reversible. The center engine was a turbine that ran off the exhaust steam from the piston engines, it was not reversible. When the mains were thrown into reverse the center engine stopped receiving steam and (by normal procedure) would be braked. This would cause a disruption of the flow over the rudder, but not a reversal.

Tests made with the RMS Olympic after the loss of Titanic showed that a smaller turning circle could be achieved by reducing the power, rather than reversing it. The smallest turn was achieved by reversing the engine on the inside of the turn, and running the outboard and center at maximum, with the rudder hard over.

Quote:

When the mains were thrown into reverse the center engine stopped receiving steam and (by normal procedure) would be braked. This would cause a disruption of the flow over the rudder, but not a reversal.

Disruption is good. With no prop ahead of the rudder you get laminar flow over rudder. Turning prop disturbs the water and gives turbulent flow - more grip. Stationary prop still disturbs the flow. But as you said - turning prop is even better.

22nd September 2010, 01:24 PM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Titanic sank due to human error http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100922/...n_titanic_book fascinating. in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false. and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false.

22nd September 2010, 01:38 PM	#2
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,857	How it REALLY happened.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

22nd September 2010, 01:41 PM	#3
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,561	I thought the Titanic sank due to a great many human errors.
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

22nd September 2010, 01:42 PM	#4
RobRoy Not A Mormon Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the sandbox Posts: 12,141	Heard this on NPR, but no other experts came froward to support this theory. Louise Patten, a writer and granddaughter of Titanic second officer Charles Lightoller, said the truth about what happened nearly 100 years ago had been hidden for fear of tarnishing the reputation of her grandfather, who later became a war hero. Well, maybe. I'll wait for someone else, who is more than just a "writer and granddaughter" to provide testimony.
	__________________ Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. All your base are belong to us.

22nd September 2010, 01:50 PM	#5
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,857	Originally Posted by Piscivore I thought the Titanic sank due to a great many human errors. It doesn't take a lot when you're floating in a bubble of air on the surface of an ocean. I spent 20 years in the USN and I know this empirically.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

22nd September 2010, 02:03 PM	#6
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,297	First Officer Murdoch gave the order hard-a-starboard (the correct order) to turn the ship to port. The ship turned to port and the iceberg hit the ship on the starboard side. It is conjectured that had the ship continued and hit the iceberg head-on, it would not have sunk; but one can never be sure of what might have been. Second Officer Lightoller testified that he was in his cabin with his light out, just going to sleep, at the moment of the collision, and that he went to the port side of the boat rather than the bridge when he got up, then to starboard, and then to the bridge. Since Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, I doubt that the orders given and the course of the ship would have had any bearing on Lightoller's reputation.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

22nd September 2010, 02:30 PM	#7
RobRoy Not A Mormon Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the sandbox Posts: 12,141	Originally Posted by Agatha First Officer Murdoch gave the order hard-a-starboard (the correct order) to turn the ship to port. The ship turned to port and the iceberg hit the ship on the starboard side. It is conjectured that had the ship continued and hit the iceberg head-on, it would not have sunk; but one can never be sure of what might have been. Second Officer Lightoller testified that he was in his cabin with his light out, just going to sleep, at the moment of the collision, and that he went to the port side of the boat rather than the bridge when he got up, then to starboard, and then to the bridge. Since Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, I doubt that the orders given and the course of the ship would have had any bearing on Lightoller's reputation. And there we have it.
	__________________ Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. All your base are belong to us.

22nd September 2010, 02:40 PM	#8
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,297	Pesky facts, so inconvenient when someone wants to sell books/cash in on an ancestor's claim to fame.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

22nd September 2010, 02:55 PM	#9
RobRoy Not A Mormon Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the sandbox Posts: 12,141	Originally Posted by Agatha Pesky facts, so inconvenient when someone wants to sell books/cash in on an ancestor's claim to fame. This was exactly what I thought when I heard the report this morning. I've read and heard rather consistent stories on how the Titanic went down, so I figured if this was an Earth-shattering revelation that re-wrote history, there would have been more to it. Since there wasn't, I pretty much discounted it as a writer trying to make a buck. Can't fault her there, but there it is.
	__________________ Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. All your base are belong to us.

22nd September 2010, 03:50 PM	#11
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla How it REALLY happened. Truly lovely!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

22nd September 2010, 05:43 PM	#12
BaaBaa Semi-literate hench-person Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,419	According to my grandma, my 3X great granduncle was Captain Smith.
	__________________ "Damn, i think you are illeterate"

22nd September 2010, 11:35 PM	#13
smellincoffee New Blood Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama \| USA Posts: 11	The only believeable thing I've heard is that Lighttoller wanted to protect the White Star line. I've read his account and he was QUITE proud to serve in the Merchant Marine and the White Star line, where sailors and officers were taught to think on their feet. I've read three other primary accounts -- one from an American historian (Col. Gracie), one from a science and technology instructor (Lawrence Beasley), and one from a Marconi operator (Bride, I think) -- and haven't heard anything that matches what she's saying. I think she's trying to raise a fuss to get publicity attention for her book...we are within a couple of years of the 100th anniversary.

23rd September 2010, 12:15 AM	#14
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	i thought it was because of that huge hole in the boat
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

23rd September 2010, 01:01 AM	#15
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Wasn't Captain Smith's order to steam at full speed ahead, at night, in an area where icebergs had already been reported, enough of a human error in the first place? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

23rd September 2010, 02:27 AM	#16
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,904	Originally Posted by Thunder http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100922/...n_titanic_book fascinating. in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false. and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false. And in the movie, a great actor makes a dreadful mistake by appearing in such an awful film. That one, unfortunately, is true.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

23rd September 2010, 05:34 AM	#17
Eddie Dane Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,479	Originally Posted by DC i thought it was because of that huge hole in the boat Nonsense! Isn't it about time we did away with this ridiculous 'big hole in boat'-theory? The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat.

23rd September 2010, 06:21 AM	#18
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,637	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane Nonsense! Isn't it about time we did away with this ridiculous 'big hole in boat'-theory? The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat. The ocean is a dangerous thing and should be regulated. Without it, the rate of ocean liner sinkings would be near to zero.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

23rd September 2010, 06:26 AM	#19
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	As it happens, the hole wasn't actually all that big. It was just long.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

23rd September 2010, 06:27 AM	#20
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat. And yet, it didn't sink the ship when it was outside it. Are we supposed to believe that moving it to the inside - a distance of a few inches - was enough to sink an ocean liner 880 feet long? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

23rd September 2010, 06:32 AM	#21
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Agatha First Officer Murdoch gave the order hard-a-starboard (the correct order) to turn the ship to port. The ship turned to port and the iceberg hit the ship on the starboard side. It is conjectured that had the ship continued and hit the iceberg head-on, it would not have sunk; but one can never be sure of what might have been. Second Officer Lightoller testified that he was in his cabin with his light out, just going to sleep, at the moment of the collision, and that he went to the port side of the boat rather than the bridge when he got up, then to starboard, and then to the bridge. Since Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, I doubt that the orders given and the course of the ship would have had any bearing on Lightoller's reputation. I would have to disagree. The ship was put into reverse which means the water flow over the rudder was reversed, meaning to make a true starboard turn the vessel should have put to starboard If they had ordered full stop of the engines, let the ship coast, the rudder would have had more bite and possibly saved the ship Also - and no sailor would think this way - hitting the berg head on probably would have saved the ship

23rd September 2010, 06:34 AM	#22
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,242	Originally Posted by Thunder in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false. Wait, it took you this long to realise it? Originally Posted by Thunder and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false. Woah! Wait a minute. You actually thought that the movie was accurate???
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

23rd September 2010, 07:17 AM	#23
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers And yet, it didn't sink the ship when it was outside it. Are we supposed to believe that moving it to the inside - a distance of a few inches - was enough to sink an ocean liner 880 feet long? Dave roflmao
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

23rd September 2010, 08:17 AM	#24
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,573	It was a second gunman on the icey knoll.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

23rd September 2010, 08:25 AM	#26
Rincewind Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,182	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers And yet, it didn't sink the ship when it was outside it. Are we supposed to believe that moving it to the inside - a distance of a few inches - was enough to sink an ocean liner 880 feet long? Dave Ah - damn these unsinkable ships! Wasn't the Yamato also supposed to be unsinkable? Or was that just in the film Tora! Tora! Tora! ?
	Last edited by Rincewind; 23rd September 2010 at 08:25 AM. Reason: too many "s"'ssssss

23rd September 2010, 08:31 AM	#27
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,176	It also sunk at free-fall speed. No ship of that size has ever sunk that fast from an ice berg before.
	__________________

23rd September 2010, 08:36 AM	#28
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,297	Originally Posted by MG1962 I would have to disagree. The ship was put into reverse which means the water flow over the rudder was reversed, meaning to make a true starboard turn the vessel should have put to starboard If they had ordered full stop of the engines, let the ship coast, the rudder would have had more bite and possibly saved the ship Also - and no sailor would think this way - hitting the berg head on probably would have saved the ship The inquiry found that the ship's head had gone round to port and testimony was that the order was given to hard-a-starboard to make the port turn, and that the engines were switched to full astern. http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq...pCollision.php I agree that running into the iceberg, which may have saved the ship, would never have been a likely choice. The iceberg was only about 500 yards from the ship when it was seen, and the warning sounded, and at the Titanic's speed she therefore hit it roughly 37 seconds after the warning.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

23rd September 2010, 08:44 AM	#29
Mister Earl Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,256	The sinking of the Titanic is obviously caused by the sudden and drastic increase in weight due to all the time-travelers arriving to witness that moment in history.

23rd September 2010, 09:00 AM	#30
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla It doesn't take a lot when you're floating in a bubble of air on the surface of an ocean. I spent 20 years in the USN and I know this empirically. That's a lie! If you knew this empirically, you wouldn't be here to tell us about it! Kidding... I'm kidding... it's a joke...
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

23rd September 2010, 09:05 AM	#31
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,857	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus That's a lie! If you knew this empirically, you wouldn't be here to tell us about it! Kidding... I'm kidding... it's a joke... I knew that. I killed a couple of women and kids to get a spot in a life boat.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

23rd September 2010, 09:05 AM	#32
Noztradamus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,928	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane The Titanic sank because of all the icy water coming _inside_ the boat. Nonsense ! ~~~~~ Nonsense back at you! I saw the movie. When water enters a ship it is no longer icy. Those people would not have survived if the water was still icy. Confirmation: when Jack was out in the open water, he died. (And there was much rejoicing)
	__________________ The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

23rd September 2010, 09:08 AM	#33
RobRoy Not A Mormon Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the sandbox Posts: 12,141	Originally Posted by Noztradamus Confirmation: when Jack was out in the open water, he died. (And there was much rejoicing) Negative. I cried. I'm crying as I write this.
	__________________ Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. All your base are belong to us.

23rd September 2010, 10:15 AM	#34
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by Thunder http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100922/...n_titanic_book fascinating. in the movie, the ship completely stops. I guess this is false. and in the movie, the ship does try to steer to the left of the iceberg. I guess this is also, false. Whether Quartermaster Hitchens made a fatal mistake is probably unknowable (though it strikes me as unlikely), but the claim about the 10 minutes of "ahead slow" causing any significant additional damage or flooding is demonstrably incorrect. http://titanic-model.com/articles/So...uare_Feet2.pdf Quote: Assuming the ship was moved forward at slow speed ahead which corresponded to about 8 knots (about 30 revolutions on her reciprocating engines with the turbine disengaged). Eight knots is 13.5 feet per second. The added pressure due to forward motion is turns out to be equivalent to a pressure head of 2.85 feet, an increase of only 11.4% over the elevation pressure head of 25 feet. This is the ram affect caused by forward movement of the ship. The initial rate of flooding at t=0 would increase by only 5.5%, or 14 tons per second instead of 13.3 tons per second. And all this assumes that our 12 square feet of damage was straight across the bow and not along the side of the ship. For damage along the side the situation is much more complex because of the changing streamlines of the water flow past the hull. Near the bow there would be an increased pressure where the streamlines curve away from the centerline of the ship. Further back the pressure will decrease as the streamlines bend the other way trying to parallel the ships centerline again. It becomes a very complex problem to solve analytically. But what we can say is that the flooding will be far less than the case which we have considered where the damage is directly across the bow. The bottom line in all of this is that the forward movement of the Titanic that took place after the initial stopping of the vessel could not have significantly contributed very much to the overall flooding situation if the movement did not continue for any significant length of time at any appreciable speed. [notes omitted]
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

23rd September 2010, 11:47 AM	#35
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 11,465	Too bad the helmsman never saw Cars or Tokyo Drift.
	__________________ Science doesn't lie.

23rd September 2010, 06:58 PM	#36
Pope130 Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 972	Originally Posted by MG1962 I would have to disagree. The ship was put into reverse which means the water flow over the rudder was reversed, meaning to make a true starboard turn the vessel should have put to starboard If they had ordered full stop of the engines, let the ship coast, the rudder would have had more bite and possibly saved the ship. Actually the flow across the rudder didn't reverse. The Olympic class had three screws, each with it's own engine. The outboard engines were conventional triple reduction piston engines, which were reversible. The center engine was a turbine that ran off the exhaust steam from the piston engines, it was not reversible. When the mains were thrown into reverse the center engine stopped receiving steam and (by normal procedure) would be braked. This would cause a disruption of the flow over the rudder, but not a reversal. Tests made with the RMS Olympic after the loss of Titanic showed that a smaller turning circle could be achieved by reducing the power, rather than reversing it. The smallest turn was achieved by reversing the engine on the inside of the turn, and running the outboard and center at maximum, with the rudder hard over.

23rd September 2010, 09:54 PM	#37
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Agatha The inquiry found that the ship's head had gone round to port and testimony was that the order was given to hard-a-starboard to make the port turn, and that the engines were switched to full astern. http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq...pCollision.php I agree that running into the iceberg, which may have saved the ship, would never have been a likely choice. The iceberg was only about 500 yards from the ship when it was seen, and the warning sounded, and at the Titanic's speed she therefore hit it roughly 37 seconds after the warning. Interesting Pope pointed out the center screw didn't actually reverse but stopped and the out board screws went into reverse......Which blows my theory out of the water