 Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index Titanic historic  Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank?
|
Browsing this Thread:
35 Anonymous Users
 Bottom  Previous Topic  Next Topic |
 2 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
Topic options
Threaded
Newest First| Poster | Thread | Rated: 2 Votes |
|---|
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #11 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users  |
Quote:
Hello Captain Jack, I'm guessing you mean 'irrelevant' with regard to the height of the watertight bulkheads. While I agree that their height is not as great an issue as has been made out by a number of people, I disagree that the water simply moved through open watertight doors. If we're speaking of the twelve main watertight doors dividing the boiler rooms and machinery spaces, as you seem to be, then they would close before significant quantities of water passed through, by means of the floats provided as a precaution. This is evident in Harland & Wolff's description: 'In the event of accident, or at any time when it might be considered desirable, the captain or officer on duty could, by simply moving an electric switch, immediately close all these doors. The time required for the doors to close was between 25 and 30 seconds. Each door could also be closed from below by operating a hand lever fitted alongside the door. As a further precaution floats were provided beneath the floor level, which, in the event of water accidentally entering any of the compartments, automatically lifted and thus released the clutches, thereby permitting the doors in that particular compartment to close if they had not already been dropped by any other means. These doors were fitted with cataracts which controlled the speed of closing. Due notice of closing from the bridge was given by a warning bell.' If you're suggesting that the ship progressively flooded through open watertight doors, then I'll have to disagree. The other watertight doors higher up in the various bulkheads might be another matter, but I guess that's a case for another discussion sometime. I've responded to your post in the other, Olympic related discussion, as well -- in case you'd missed it. Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2005/5/14 9:39
  |
  |
|||
Mark Chirnside
Visit Website
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #12 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2004/12/24
From Manchester England
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Yeah I must say that I agree with Mark here as I said in the topic about would Titanic of sank faster with open watertight doors, (that kind of proves a point) the ship would of sank a lot minutes faster and would of got a very steep list no life boats would of been able to be launched due to the list and the power would of went out within 20 minutes making the disstress calls imposible, leaving a great panic in the dark with no boats & all faitality.
And if that had happend no one would of belived titanic had sank they would of just thought it had disapeared! |
|||
|
_________________
Glen Fitzgerald www.titanicinformation.co.uk |
||||
Posted on: 2005/5/14 11:05
|
|
|||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #13 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/3/14
From New Hampshire
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
from my understanding 12 of the 15 watertight doors were closed. am i correct? as Captain Jack said, the water wove throught them like a maze, or something to that effect. according to the movie (which obviously has some mistakes) the Titanic was put in full speed astern before they hit the iceburg. according to the eyewitness account they didn't get the signal until about 2 seconds before she hit. then some time later, she stopped and went into slow astern. the water reportedly rose from the floor... I have heard many ppl talking about how the water rose above the watertight doors. this must not be true as Captain Jack pointed out the maze theory. if the water had risen above the watertight compartments then she would have had a huge list. right? but according to you guys if they were left open then she would hav had a huge list. so...is it true that the water wove through the remaining doors and then went into the rest of the ship?
|
||
|
_________________
myspace: www.myspace.com/woahitzswazy facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=524623472&ref=profile |
|||
Posted on: 2005/5/15 13:10
|
|
||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #14 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Hello Edward9139,
You wrote: >>from my understanding 12 of the 15 watertight doors were closed. am i correct?<< While the number of open doors will always be debated, you're incorrect as to the number of watertight doors in any case. See the British enquiry report. >>as Captain Jack said, the water wove throught them like a maze, or something to that effect.<< Try reading my post above and Glen's post, where we dispute Captian Jack's analysis. >>I have heard many ppl talking about how the water rose above the watertight doors.<< It sounds like a case of confusing the watertight doors with the watertight bulkheads. Many people do it -- don't ask me why! .>this must not be true as Captain Jack pointed out the maze theory.<< Again, see my and Glen's posts above. >>if the water had risen above the watertight compartments then she would have had a huge list. right?<< Titanic would have trimmed by the bow -- where the flooding was concentrated. She would not necessarily have listed (as in sideways). >>but according to you guys if they were left open then she would hav had a huge list.<< Glen would be the one to ask for that information. I'm guessing he was referring to a documentary where they suggested that the ship would have listed, had the doors been open. >>so...is it true that the water wove through the remaining doors and then went into the rest of the ship?<< No, as I've already explained in my above post where I quoted from Harland & Wolff's description. Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2005/5/15 13:56
|
|
|||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #15 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2005/3/14
From New Hampshire
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
ok. thanks for the help but never mind. i'm lost
|
||
|
_________________
myspace: www.myspace.com/woahitzswazy facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=524623472&ref=profile |
|||
Posted on: 2005/5/15 14:00
|
|
||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #16 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/3/30
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
First you has to realize that there are many current institutes, Forensic Ship Division studies and study forums working under grants from all over the world doing present day studies and research on the Titanic. If you limit yourself to internet sights, Past or old out dated studies only you are limiting yourself in the total picture.
In Castine, Maine at the Maine Maritime Academy last April 23 - 25, 2004 at the Titanic Symposium numerous authories such as Capt. Charles Weeks, Captain Erik D. Wood and numerous others discussed Captain David G. Brown and LCDR (ret) Parks Stephenson 's lastest study of the iceburg damage and flooding of the Titanic. Although I did go to this symposium I maintained email contact and follow-up. Combined with research of old testimony from the British Wreck Commioner's Inquirey and the United States Senate Inquirey and new computized mock model studies one can see that "LATERIAL WATER MOVEMENT " is much more acute than first thought. Now read this carefully! Laterial movement of water was reported in the interviews in 1912! You must take time a carefully read the witnessess answers to the inquiries. "I'm not suggesting it could have happened", the actual crew of the Titanic report it way back in 1912. So your debate is not with me but the witnesses on the Titanic. I received numerous emailed reports from Ret. Erik D. Woods that I would gladly forward you to read and review. If interested send your request to attention Capt. Jack Sparrow Also review Capt Charles Week's presentation here at http://home.comcast.net/~bwormst7/Symposium/flooding2.html The debate on how water moved depends on the manner in which one excepts the Titanic struck the iceberg. One has to decide between assumptions of Collision, Allsion or Grounding. Which of the three do you prescribe to Mark? |
||
Posted on: 2005/5/16 16:14
|
|
||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #17 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Hello,
Quote:
I’m not sure who you’re addressing here, but speaking for myself I’ve never limited myself to viewing internet sites. I am also well aware that there are many institutes and researchers conducting research into the Titanic’s sinking. I do wonder where you got the impression that the other participants of this thread were ignorant as to the research being done at the moment. Quote: In Castine, Maine at the Maine Maritime Academy last April 23 - 25, 2004 at the Titanic Symposium numerous authories such as Capt. Charles Weeks, Captain Erik D. Wood and numerous others discussed Captain David G. Brown and LCDR (ret) Parks Stephenson 's lastest study of the iceburg damage and flooding of the Titanic. Although I did go to this symposium I maintained email contact and follow-up. I’m aware of this symposium, although I didn’t attend myself. Quote: Combined with research of old testimony from the British Wreck I’m not sure what relevance this has to the discussion about which watertight doors were open and the float mechanism? Or are you addressing another set of arguments? With regard to the merits of careful reading, I agree. As a friendly suggestion, proofreading your post might have eliminated errors such as Commioner's, Inquirey, and computized. Quote: Laterial movement of water was reported in the interviews in 1912! You must take time a carefully read the witnessess answers to the inquiries. "I'm not suggesting it could have happened", the actual crew of the Titanic report it way back in 1912. So your debate is not with me but the witnesses on the Titanic. Who are you addressing, what is the point you are trying to convey, and which debate are you referring to? Quote: I received numerous emailed reports from Ret. Erik D. Woods that I would gladly forward you to read and review. If interested send your request to I am aware of the thrust of Captain Erik Wood’s research. Indeed, I’ve shared my own research material with him – and have done so since either 2001 or 2002. We have corresponded, on and off, via e-mail for several years. Quote: The debate on how water moved depends on the manner in which one excepts the Titanic struck the iceberg. One has to decide between assumptions of Collision, Allsion or Grounding. Which of the three do you prescribe to Mark? I really don’t see quite how your points are relevant to the debate we’ve been having, which centred around the number of watertight doors that were open, and the idea that water passed through open watertight doors (which is not correct in light of what we know about the float mechanism)? The issue of the watertight doors being open (as in those toward the after end of the ship) is really not relevant to the debate about the collision/allision with the iceberg. As it happens, I would not want to comment on Captain Wood’s research without seeing the totality of his arguments. However, I do think there is a lot of merit in the arguments of Captain Brown as to the possibility of a grounding. And I have seen a lot of merit in what I have seen of Captain Wood’s research. Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2005/5/16 16:44
|
|
|||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #18 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2005/3/30
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quote:
But there you go again, it is VERY RELEVANT to the debate if Titanic collided/allisioned or grounded on the iceberg because these result in each a different damage that compromised the water tight hull of the Titanic. If you prescibe to the common belief Titanic collided with the iceberg and the rivits and steel plates were buckled running down the side of the Titanic which averaged a total 12 sq cubic feet of damage then the results would be very much more different than the "GROUNDING THEORY" that Capt. Wood, Capt Weeks, Captain David G. Brown and LCDR (ret) Parks Stephenson all have written and published papers on. If you say you know Capt Wood's work than you must be aware of his 2004 article "Damage to Titanic: A New Scenario" As I said I have that report he emailed/refered to me and I would forward it to you to read since you apparently haven't. It closely relates to Capt Brown's theory and both shared common variables. As I said it is a very relevent issue of the watertight doors being opened and the manner in which the Titanic struck the iceberg. The theory takes in account numerous different levels and topics of debate in order to start arriving at any conclusions. It is impossible to discuss this topic in one dimension, you must consider watertight door positions, type of damage received and where on the Titanic and other varibles all in their totalities. You can nit pick at my post all you want but if you are not aware of the grounding theory and door position I can't see how you can argue the matter! These are your words' "As it happens, I would not want to comment on Captain Wood’s research without seeing the totality of his arguments. " As I said I will gladly forward it to you to read. |
||
Posted on: 2005/5/17 2:20
|
|
||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #19 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2005/3/30
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quote:
Here is a link to Eric's 2004 theory that I think you will find interesting and will then see the issue of the watertight doors is really very relevant to the debate about the collision/allision/grounding with the iceberg. It is what the entire theory is based on. http://home.comcast.net/~bwormst7/Symposium/flooding.html Enjoy. |
||
Posted on: 2005/5/17 2:37
|
|
||
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #20 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Hello,
Quote:
It’s certainly relevant to a debate as to the nature of the damage caused by the iceberg. However, I don’t see how it’s relevant to the opening of watertight doors far aft, which is what we had been discussing. I am aware of the suggestion that damage was caused to the Titanic’s hull even aft of boiler room 5, but the open watertight doors we had been discussing in this thread were even further aft than that. Your recent posting, and replies to me, seem to be moving onto a much larger discussion about the various theories in existence as to the nature of the damage from the iceberg, and the interaction of the iceberg and the Titanic (and vice versa). Yes, that is important, but in my view that should form part of a seperate thread. Quote: If you prescibe to the common belief Titanic collided with the iceberg and the rivits and steel plates were buckled running down the side of the Titanic which averaged a total 12 sq cubic feet of damage then the results would be very much more different than the "GROUNDING THEORY" that Capt. Wood, Capt Weeks, Captain David G. Brown and LCDR (ret) Parks Stephenson all have written and published papers on. I agree, and would have thought that this would have been perfectly obvious. I certainly haven't said anything to the contrary in this thread. Quote: If you say you know Capt Wood's work than you must be aware of his 2004 article "Damage to Titanic: A New Scenario" As I said I have that report he emailed/refered to me and I would forward it to you to read since you apparently haven't. It closely relates to Capt Brown's theory and both shared common variables. I am aware of his 2004 report. Indeed, I provided some of the information in that article, that you can find under the paragraph on ‘similar incidents’ for instance. I find it interesting that you think you can presume to know what I have and haven’t read. Quote: It is impossible to discuss this topic in one dimension, you must consider watertight door positions, type of damage received and where on the Titanic and other varibles all in their totalities. I’ve never said that the issue of the Titanic’s sinking was a one-dimensional issue, even if you appear to presume to think that that is my opinion. Quote: You can nit pick at my post all you want but if you are not aware of the grounding theory and door position I can't see how you can argue the matter! What makes you think I am nit-picking? I’ve tried to respond to your points, and I haven’t put forward any substantial argument with regard to the grounding theory. My original post in this thread was as follows: Quote:
As you should be able to see from my re-post of my original post, I joined this thread to highlight the fact that the float mechanism should have closed the watertight doors in the after part of the ship before any substantial quantities of water passed through them. This in response to your apparent suggestion that water simply flooded aft through the ship’s open watertight doors. Glen clearly understood what I was saying, and highlighted an apparent simulation of the Titanic -- and how long she would have floated had watertight doors been open heading far aft. Again, it’s interesting that you assume ignorance on the part of the other contributors to this thread – such as myself – when you make the apparent implication that others are not aware of the grounding theory. Quote: These are your words' It’s not a question of not having access to his arguments. I am aware of, and have seen, the material. At the moment, I don’t have enough free time to do justice to his material by giving it the lengthy, detailed and considered reading that it deserves. I have read that article before, although not recently. However, I am broadly aware of the thrust of his research, and unless you believe that the Titanic was damaged along the majority of its length (which as I understand it, Captain Wood doesn’t), I really don’t see how you believe that his theories are relevant to the open watertight doors far aft – which I thought we had been discussing. You posted again, saying: Quote: I think you will find interesting and will then see the issue of the watertight doors is really very relevant to the debate about the collision/allision/grounding with the iceberg. It is what the entire theory is based on. Perhaps this highlights my confusion. You speak about the 'issue of the watertight doors,' without specifying whether you mean the doors further forward (in the vicinity of the iceberg damage) or those much further aft (apparently away from iceberg damage even if you believe that the damage was more extensive than is often believed). You comment extensively on the 'allision' theory -- if I may call it that -- and don't address the issues of the float mechanisms on the watertight doors further aft, which is what we'd been discussing originally. Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2005/5/17 9:57
|
|
|||
 Top Previous Topic Next Topic |
2 |
 |
|
You cannot start a new topic.
You can view topic.
