|
Author
|
Topic: New Titanic theory
|
|
|
Linerrich
First Class Passenger
Member # 4864
|
posted 09-22-2010 10:57 AM
Pure fantasy--every reliable account, from the people who were there, on the bridge, disputes this. And it is a well-documented fact by ALL the survivors (and there were over 700) that TITANIC stopped immediately after the collision--she did not try to continue sailing onwards, as alleged in the article.Interesting that this all "comes to light" nearly 100 years later, supposedly something that was really known all along and just kept secret for no apparent reason. Watch for a new book to come out, surely one of a flurry of new ones for the 100th anniversary! Rich
Posts: 4210 | From: Miami, FL | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeBarryboat
First Class Passenger
Member # 5308
|
posted 09-22-2010 12:46 PM
Yes, new theories are popping up, like the one of the helmsman steering the wheel the wrong way therefore hitting the iceberg. It's foolish to think that the helmsman wouldn't know what direction to turn the wheel after hours and hours of steering the ship in daylight and seeing the ship's reaction. Speaking of new books, of course John Maxtone-Graham is writing one: Here's a video of Maxtone-Graham talking about his new book and the unique perspective he has. The Titanic book I published a few years ago is on Amazon.com [ 09-22-2010: Message edited by: LeBarryboat ]
Posts: 1955 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ernst
First Class Passenger
Member # 5369
|
posted 09-22-2010 03:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
Does it actually take two miles for a modern ship to turn? 
I am not 100 % sure what it means that it 'takes two miles to turn' but the short answer is: No. A typical passenger ships reacts sooner = it does not cover the distance of two miles before responding. The diameter of the turning 'circle' (if that's what is meant) depends on the speed but a typical passenger ships can be turned through 360 degrees within a square of two miles side length. It's not the clearest picture but one still gets an idea of the size of the turning 'circle': 
Elation turning at full speed - www.ship-technology.com [ 09-22-2010: Message edited by: Ernst ]
Posts: 9746 | From: Eindhoven | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian_O
First Class Passenger
Member # 3910
|
posted 09-23-2010 06:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by WhiteStar:
I get to play the part of the baker. He gets to drink a bottle of Johnny Walker as the ship sinks.  Reed
But was it Black Label or Red Label?  In "A Night to Remember" you can see that it iis Johnny Walker but can't tell which type because it was a B&W movie. Brian
Posts: 2698 | From: Pointe-Claire, QC Canada | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jetwet1
First Class Passenger
Member # 6361
|
posted 09-24-2010 04:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Maasdam:
In the Titanic case the rudder was slightly to small to react. This caused Titanic to react slower on rudder changes. It's a common fact that this was discovered during here very short trail run. That Titanic keep on sailing after the collision is natural. Titanic sailed with 21 knots (I believed) no ship stops immediately even when the machines where stopped. Titanic took some time to stop completely. Greetings Ben. [ 09-22-2010: Message edited by: Maasdam ]
Actually, it was a lot to small, a very serious design blunder. My own theory, the Titanic was trying to escape a a "save the Titanic" campaign by you know who !
Posts: 608 | From: Las VEgas | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
petede
First Class Passenger
Member # 3459
|
posted 09-28-2010 10:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Ernst:
Why is that supposed to be the case? There might be 'some second order effects' but one would expect a rudder in the flow of a propeller to be more efficient than a skeg mounted rudder (of the same size).
The reason is that the center prop could only turn one way. The center propeller was a turbine using the last of the steam before being returned to the condensers. There was no provision for a reverse as the gearing was considered excessive and not nessary. Hence when the ship put into reverse the flow of the center propeller was stopped causing less flow past the rudder and a reduction of the efficiency of the rudder. Now on to that story. I am appalled that they would tarnish the memory of Robert Hitchins. I want to ask the writer two questions. One why was he panicking? As a helmsmen he was in a windowless room staring at a compass. No iceberg was visible to him. Orders to the helmsman were not uncommon and certainly would not cause a person to panic. The 6th officer was standing over him to make sure the order was carried out.
The second question is what does it matter which way the wheeel was turned? The look out reported the iceberg "dead ahead". Meaning it was right in front. It was not off either side, or the lookout would have reported "iceberg off the port bow". Remember the The truth of the matter is that the captain has ultimate responsibility of his ship. He chose to travel faster then his sight/stopping distance. He gambled like other captains, but he lost.
Posts: 146 | From: New York, USA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ernst
First Class Passenger
Member # 5369
|
posted 09-28-2010 10:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by petede:
The reason is that the center prop could only turn one way. The center propeller was a turbine using the last of the steam before being returned to the condensers. There was no provision for a reverse as the gearing was considered excessive and not nessary. Hence when the ship put into reverse the flow of the center propeller was stopped causing less flow past the rudder and a reduction of the efficiency of the rudder.[...]
I actually replied to the statement 'The issue with the Olympic-class rudder is the center propeller'. The lift created by a rudder scales with the square of the velocity of the flow it's exposed to - and since the flow behind a propeller is faster than the flow behind e.g. the skeg a rudder of the same size is actually more efficient behind a propeller than when it's mounted to the skeg. Of course the efficiency of a rudder behind a propeller deteriorates if the propeller is stopped - and of course it's even worse if that propeller is going astern. However, even a skeg mounted rudder of a ship with two or four propellers (and no propeller right in front of the rudder) is not doing much if the propellers go astern (like in the case of Titanic). As said above, she hit an iceberg and sank. This was a terrible accident but accidents happen. To 'blame' details like her rudder or propeller configuration is a bit childish IMHO. There was actually a proper investigation whether she could in principle have avoided the iceberg and sinking (e.g. if other commands were given like not going astern etc.). The finding was: No, she could not have avoided that iceberg and it was more or less inevitable that she sank. If I remember right, this investigation has been done at HSVA if you want to look that up. [ 09-28-2010: Message edited by: Ernst ]
Posts: 9746 | From: Eindhoven | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|