Jessica hi, Thankyou for your contribution.

I beleive you have got one or more of your theories wrong.

For example, A hydrodynamic force at that depth is very unlikley.
Atleast at the degree you specify. A hydrodynamic force depends mainly on a convection current and in these very cold climates a convection current produces little if no effect.

However corrosian, carasion and saltation do paly an emense part in this effect. Please do not think i am putting you down jessica as you have put some great evidence forward.

Thansk and best wishes.
Shaun

HI jessica
I will explain various hydrodynamic forces and/or the equations to work out the pressure and velocity of the Force.
Please forgive any spelling mistakes.



To correctly simulate the rheology of concentrated suspensions at high shear rates requires the inclusion of hydrodynamic forces between particles. The computation of such interactions is very intensive, and it presents a significant challenge: to produce algorithms that enable a study of systems with large numbers of particles.(I have tried many times Jessica.) The work of Brady and coworkers in the early eighties showed the way forward to such a goal. The technique, Stokesian Dynamics presents a formalism for studying such systems. We first write down the Langevin equation for a colloidal particle within a hydrodynamic medium:
Please note Jessica that temprature is very important hear.(IE the colder the area is, the less effective a hydrodynamic force would be)

FH + FC + FB = M · dU/dt

Here, F represents forces acting on an individual particle: Hydrodynamic, Colloidal (charge repulsion/attraction for example) and Brownian forces. M is the mass of the particle, and U its velocity.Within a colloidal system, the time scales of interest dictate that inertia may be neglected. Thus the right hand side of above equation can be neglected. We also work with the assumption that the fluid obeys the Stokes equations, i.e. we are within a low Reynolds number regime. Thus the hydrodynamic forces can be considered linear in the velocities, therefore FH = R·U, where R is a resistance tensor, the elements of which describe the hydrodynamic interactions between individual particles. To simulate colloid particles, we need to determine the particles velocities at each time step, thus the above equation becomes:

U = -R-1 · (FC + FB)

Thus solving for U requires the inversion of the resistance matrix R. This typically restricts the size of the systems that one can study to less than 100 particles. In order to simulate systems on a larger scale, Ball and Melrose have proposed an approximation that is applicable to colloids at high concentrations in shear flow. They argue that at such concentrations, where the typical interparticle spacing is small, the near-field terms in the resistance matrix (which are given by lubrication theory) will dominate in shear flow. Thus R can be made sparse; this greatly increases computational efficiency. The method is now typically of O(N2) compared to O(N3) for the full matrix, making the study of larger systems feasible (typically as much as 4,000 particles). Even though the resistance tensor is sparse and consists of near-field terms, the inversion of such a matrix results in a many-bodied far-field mobility tensor. Ref. gives full details on the technique, in particular how to correctly handle the correlated Brownian forces through use of a 2nd order difference scheme. The code has been implemented and validated. It has a suite of colloid interactions, including charge, depletion, and polymer coats. Particles may interact with just squeeze lubrication or with full modes of shear and rotation. Nearest neighbours are identified through the construction of a Delaunay mesh which is co-moving with the particle centres.
( i have included a diagram)

Jessica if you work out the equation you will find my theory proved right. If you need help please pm me and i will give you the eqaution format and answers.

as i have said please forgive my speling errors.

pleas enote that, i dont want the Titanic to be raised

I could also go into; Sphere-Sphere gravitational softening and point-Sphere-gravitational softening.

If you wish to see this then please tell me and i will right another report on the subject.

Your reprt on the wreck is very intresting but, Is lacking alot of crucial parameters, Equations Ect.
i do agree with you in part about the hydrodynamic forces, as i have explained above though. It all depends on temprature and depth.

Attached file:   hydro.jpg (0.00 KB)

---

Well I wouldn't call my comments a report, it was a pretty general statement. And I take no offense, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong! But it's good to have a nice stimulating conversation.

Actually when I mention the hydrodynamic forces (or fluid dynamic really), I was speaking more of the amount of drag and turbulant flow that would be created due to all the obstructions, the "lift" force (I don't know what it would be called in hydrodynamics) that would be placed on it, at the angle and manor at which the ship would have to be brought up, and the pressure differences of the water flowing around the wreck as it would be lifted. Is this what you are saying would be to a lesser degree due to the depths (and temperature especially)? I agree with this, but we would be trying to lift the Titanic to the surface, which means these would all be changing. All of these forces are quite violent, even at a small number. I guess if it were all taken into very careful consideration, than possibly it would be done.

What you are saying does make sense, and I understand the affect the colder temperature would have (Brownian), but how would I go about applying these equations to Titanic's wreck? How would I take into account the effect all the obstructions, debries and overall state, shape and angle the ship is brought up at? Since all of these things are pretty much unknowns (to me anyway), and there are no models to work with that I know of. I suppose I could at best, use Titanic's plans and do calculations based upon those. That would be a load of work, very difficult. Too large a scale for me to take on anytime in the near future lol.

I know I can't be wrong in saying that these forces played a huge roll in the destruction of the ship on the way down. It's why I'm not surprised the stern looks the way it does (excluding the air that was still trapped inside, which also caused destruction). Because of the way the stern fell (and it's weight), it encountered these forces to a greater degree than the bow section (which is more hydrodynamic, the way it fell, and it was already mostly filled with water).

I admittedly don't know much about hydrodynamics, I do know about aerodynamics though. I know that the forces encountered here, are very similar in the water (and are greatly magnified), and are very violent, which is how I came to my theory. Maybe that was a stupid assumption.

As for spelling, don't worry, this is the internet.

Also, could I trouble you to translate these forces (those that apply) from aerdynamic terms to hydrodynamic terms? Just a few simple abbreviations are ok.

Thanks, so much
Jessica

in my opinion it cannot be raised by nothing...


she will get broken if they try to do it..

Jessica, i overall agree with your theory. You are an extremley knwoledgeable person and in time i would like to go into more detail about the wreck with you. As for Aerodynamics. Well i also no alot about aerodynaics. As you said the hydrodynamic force although similar to that of aerodynamical forces are much more concentrated.

Hydrodynamic forces were partly responsible for the dicintergration of much of the wreck. I hasten to add thoguh, That as you also said trapped and compressed air destroyed more of the ship than the various forces acting on the ships.

Ok.

Aerodynamics act much the same way. (You probably already know this by the way.)

The Titanic was partly destroyed by small switling lines of air/water.(vorticies.)
As you well know Titanic was based on a cetre fugal force. This is ultymatley what makes the ship float.

The lateral and longitudinal centre of gravity was lost when the ship broke up. This put emense strain on the whole structure.

Whilst deceniding the Titanic was going extrmely fast. This creates the voticies(correct my spelling if wrong) Yhis was mostly responsable for the decintergration of the super structure of the ship. And the shear force at which the ship hit the bottom.

As for converting my report to hydrodynamic!!!!!!!!! It already is.

i can post a report on the effects of aerodynamics if you wish.

Quote:

Yes, these vorticies are exactly what I was talking about with regards to turbulent flow tearing the Titanic apart. I agree with your theory.

Oh and sorry I meant converting your report from hydrodynamic to aerodynamic. Sorry! It was late last night lol. Anyway, that won't be necessary as I've done it already. It would be interesting to read your report on the aerodynamics of the ship. Only if you have time though! I really appreciate you posting what you have so I feel guilty asking for more!

Hi Jessica, Yes i will right a report on the aerodynamics of the ship, Which area though; Super structure air resistance, hull air resistance, aerodynamic forces acting on the ship overall.

Please say which area, or do you wish to have all aspects in a full report.

Thanks all the best
Shaun

Quote:

Superstructure air resistance. I'm curious to know what affect that could have had on fuel consumption lol.

Thanks so much,
Jessica

Hi jessica.

If you think of this as if it were an aircraft, It will be much easier for me to explain.

A aircraft must be sleak to allow a soft and "lubricated" airflow around it's airfoils A aircraft is much like a ship. (this is a propeller driven aircraft)

For it's time the Titanics super structure was aerodynamic to a certain degree. The affect on fuel consumpation probably could have been reduced imesnley if the the whole outer shell had a softer and more rounded look.

As a ship the Titanic was not extremley aerodynamic, The key was hydrodynamics.

It was aerodynamic in some aspects to some degree.

There isn't really that much i can rwright about fuel consumption. If i had somthing to compare it to maybe i could write more.

Hope this has answred some of your questions on fuel consumption.