Titanic yet again. - Page 4 - Ships Nostalgia
04:57

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Titanic yet again.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #76  
Old 5th January 2017, 18:27
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,530
Because the damage was over five compartment, the 'gash' must have been at least 300 ft.

The technical people say that if it was a 'gash' she would have founderd very quickly. Because of the time lines to flood the compartment, and they do know how long it too, the damage was of approximately 12 sq ft... spread over 300 ft of the hull. Not a gash at all, but more like buckled plates, open seams, rivets sheared etc. I guess the damage caused by the fire in the coal bunker was of no consequence.

Last edited by Stephen J. Card; 5th January 2017 at 18:46..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 5th January 2017, 18:28
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,908
#66

Very many thanks, Duncan!

I can hear an "Ooof!" and an "Oh, Christ!" from Murdoch, as he sucked his teeth!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 5th January 2017, 19:46
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,908
#70

By every process of logic, mathematics and elimination, all of this must be right.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 6th January 2017, 20:33
Steve Oatey's Avatar
Steve Oatey Steve Oatey is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Engineering
Active: 1971 - Present
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,214
Hot steel, brittle steel, weak rivets, short watertight bulkheads, open watertight doors etc etc We've heard a lot of theories, but if it didn't hit the iceberg, none of this other stuff would have mattered. That's why it sank.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 6th January 2017, 23:10
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,530
CONCORDIA. Two Compartment vessel. 2.5 hours sunk.

TITANIC Two Compartment vessel but 5 were opened. Hot steel, brittle steel, weak rivets, etc. I would think the berg is a lot bigger than the Gigilio rock 2.5 hours sunk.

100 years difference. I think I'd still stick with a Belfast-built vessel.

:-)
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 6th January 2017, 23:10
Graham Wallace Graham Wallace is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Engineering
Active: 1955 - 1962
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Oatey View Post
Hot steel, brittle steel, weak rivets, short watertight bulkheads, open watertight doors etc etc We've heard a lot of theories, but if it didn't hit the iceberg, none of this other stuff would have mattered. That's why it sank.
Get back to work, do not worry about icebergs!

When are we meeting for lunch?

Graham
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 8th January 2017, 13:40
JohnBP JohnBP is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
My location
Posts: 228
Mmmm Graham, would that be a curry... J
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 8th January 2017, 13:47
Tmac1720's Avatar
Tmac1720 Tmac1720 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1964 - 1997
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
My location
Posts: 7,013
It wuz sabotue..... stabat...sabetat..... guys from Swan Hunter wot done it...
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Oul hand
Money can't buy happiness but it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Skoda
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 8th January 2017, 17:20
WilliamH WilliamH is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 751
I saw an interesting piece on a programme called Mysteries of the Museum about the Titanic. The piece related to the wireless traffic at the time of the sinking, the researcher said it was chaos because all the operators on the vessels in the North
Atlantic were transmitting at the same time and so important information could not be passed. Maybe some of our radio members will be able to give more information on procedures at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 8th January 2017, 19:39
fred henderson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,590
Cool

I have merged the two threads that were running on this subject. The other was mysteriously in the BP Tankers Forum. I know that BP has been responsible for a number of disasters, but I do not think that they sank the Titanic!
__________________
Fred
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10th January 2017, 04:31
Steve Oatey's Avatar
Steve Oatey Steve Oatey is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Engineering
Active: 1971 - Present
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Wallace View Post
Get back to work, do not worry about icebergs!

When are we meeting for lunch?

Graham
Icebergs may be a concern soon, Graham, if this weather continues!!

Ten days off coming up, so lunch in there somewhere.
Steve
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 8th February 2017, 16:31
TonyReynolds TonyReynolds is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 26
I have read a couple of old marine engineering books which refer in large part to coal bunkers. It was clear to me that:
1. Fires in coal bunkers were relatively common so that all the books contained advice on how such fires should be treated.
2. The ships' engineers and stokers were expected to know how to deal with such fires.
3. Quenching the whole bunker with water was highly discouraged since the effect of water on the fire, while it is still in the body of the coal in the bunker (there is a lot of residual heat due to the heating of the coal surrounding the seat of the fire), is the production of carbon monoxide gas which is inflammable and, in the correct air/fuel ratio, explosive.
4. The nautical wisdom of the time was that the coal bunker should be re-trimmed until the sight of the fire could be found. this should then be spread out and extinguished using copious amounts of water.

It may be that the fire was still being damped down when the ship sailed - but such a situation does not appear to have been so out of the ordinary in those days.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 8th February 2017, 18:26
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,908
#87

Many thanks, Tony.

This makes much sense of things.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 8th February 2017, 19:59
Mad Landsman's Avatar
Mad Landsman Mad Landsman is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,285
#87

A further point has sprung to mind regarding '3'.

I recall that in the production of coal gas, steam was used alternating with air. This, I think, produced not only carbon monoxide and methane but hydrogen.
Some ships' stokers may, no doubt, have also done some time in gas works and would have been well aware of this.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titanic - again ! andysk News and Views from the Shipping World 33 9th March 2013 15:08
Titanic II A.D.FROST Blue Star Line 0 4th May 2012 18:07
What else? The Titanic seamenschurch Ships No More 0 26th March 2012 20:37
Titanic tom e kelso Ship Research 6 27th May 2008 20:06
New On The Titanic John Rogers Ship Research 21 18th June 2007 14:16



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.