Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index
   Titanic historic
  Breaking apart

Browsing this Thread:   33 Anonymous Users

 

 Bottom   Previous Topic   Next Topic
1

  •  Rate Thread
      Rate this Thread
      Excellent
      Good
      Average
      Bad
      Terrible
Poster Thread
  •  clinton
      clinton
Breaking apart
#1

Joined: 2005/1/8
From London UK
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
There are various theories regarding the breakup of Titanic in two, at or near the surface of the North Atlantic. Even eye witnesses had different accounts on the matter. Is there any way of proving that the ship indeed broke in half at the surface as suggested in the 1997 movie?
Posted on: 2005/11/20 18:35
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  S-Park
      S-Park
Re: Breaking apart
#2

Joined: 2005/11/15
From Uk
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
As you already know the ship could only stay a float with the first four compartments flooded. The water- tight bulkheads only went as high as E deck so once the front of the ship went under, The water simply spilled over the bulkheads filling each compartment.
This made the aft of the ship extrmeley heavy and simply pulled the ships stern up into the air. The ship was not desighned to take anywere near that much strain, The bulkheads, supports and the hull just buckled.

I do not beleive it broke up below the surface. The stern at this point would have been full of trapped air and would support itself on the way down.

I aslo do not think hydrodynamic forces were responsible for this either. The vortcies created by the ship on the way down however, would have resulted in the ship's super structure dicintergrating.(i hatsen to add that vorticies or turbulent fluid flow increases as the speed of the ship increases, therfore the most damge done by turbulent fluid flow(vorticies) would have been done seconds before the ship hit the bottom. So turbulent fluid flow can not be responsible for this.

I therfore conclude that, I beleive that the emense strain put on the bukheads, hull, interior structural support and superstructure
ultymatley ended in the ship buckling under it's own weight and breaking up on the surface.

thanks for your time.
Shaun.
Posted on: 2005/11/20 20:33
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  GooseGrl172
      GooseGrl172
Re: Breaking apart
#3

Joined: 2004/10/11
From Maryland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
While I do agree that the ship buckled and "broke" at the surface, I also believe that the stern and bow section did not completely seperate at the surface. Instead, that they actually seperated just under the surface. I made a post some time ago about my idea and it was this:

After it breaks (at the surface), the bow section sinks, pulling the stern upright. The stern bobs (up and then down) a small bob, but only once. The bow section is still attached by hull plates and such under water so it bobs too. The bob would have been quite slow, so to on lookers (those that saw it, in utter darkness mind you), it looked like it was just standing there for a minute or so. The stern section still has a lot of air in it. Since the stern is still attached to the bow, when the bow descends (down) again, it has enough inertia this time (for both it and the stern section) to continue down, the stern section still attached. Now since the stern section is still mostly full of air, once it is completely submerged at a certain depth, the two pieces are met with enough opposing force to tear them apart. The stern still wants to float, but the bow wants to keep going down. So they're being pulled in opposite directions (which had been occuring during the entire time, or at the surface too; it's just that they were met with enough force now to seperate them). They seperate and the bow continues on it's way down. The stern may "float" a bit under the surface. Since air was exploding out of it while the bow was pulling on it, it had a chance to "equalize", so it's not going to return to the surface, but it won't sink immediately either. It quickly becomes unstabilized again (since air has been escaping the whole time), enough air has been forced out for it begin a descend (which starts out rather slow) now. There is still a lot of air trapped in the stern as it descends, so a length of it's trip down would have been slower then that of the bow section. It's also being destroyed by the air that's being forced out of it as it goes. Also, since the stern section wasn't as hydrodynamic as the bow section, there would have experienced more parasitic drag , so that would have also managed the speed (making it more difficult for the stern's speed to increase) of the descend. So with the stern section, a lot of the damage was done by the air being forced out. In conjuction with the turbulant flows around it during the descend, it ends up on the ocean floor unrecognizable. I'm sorry this seems like jumble of words, it's much easier to demonstrate. I could draw something if need be.

This is the basic idea, but the two pieces could have seperated while the stern was still visible at the surface. I just believe that there had to have been some inertial forces involved here (the bob), more than what has been shown, that the stern wasn't just "sitting" there, and then all of a sudden descended at a fairly constant, and rapid rate. This is more what I'm emphysizing, even if it didn't happen exactly as I put it above.
I've actually seen a model video of the break up that demonstrates this view exactly, at a Titanic exhibit.

The reason I came up with this is after watching Cameron's movie (although the break up wasn't completely accurate, but for a good reason), and reading some testimony, I just couldn't believe that the stern would just sit up there like that, and then all of a sudden (at the rate that it did) descend. Just unnatural to me. The way it looked in Cameron's movie, it looked as if it were being PULLED down. I mean think about it, why would the bow descend naturally, and then all of a sudden the stern just disappears, with all that air still in it. The reason the stern would have stood upright like that in the first place is because its till had so much air in it.


Jessica
Posted on: 2005/11/21 18:02
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  S-Park
      S-Park
Re: Breaking apart
#4

Joined: 2005/11/15
From Uk
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Jessica your theories are much the same as mine. When i say it can't have broken up at the surface i meant, quite a way down. ie half a mile to a mile.

I do however agree completley with your theory. I beleive turbulent flow would have destoyed most of the bow. As you said it created less Drag(parastic) and would have created greater vorticies. Your theory on the stern floating under the surface i beleive is absolutley correct. Untill the pressure inside has equalized it would have been impossible for the ship to decend, Unless the air could escape. This as you say would have caused emense damge to the super structure as weel as the hull.

Thanks jessica.
best wishes shaun
oh and are you an aerodynamacist? many of your theories are based around aerodynamics.
Posted on: 2005/11/21 18:23
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: Breaking apart
#5

Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Indeed, the Cameron depiction has caused many a headache to myself and probably some of you. So many people take the 1997 films version of events as what really happened, like Murdoch shooting himself etc.

We must all remember Cameron’s depiction was a 'dramatization', it had to look and feel spectacular. This explains the split scene, it had to look very frightening and leave the audience in shock and awe. Which it did, very well I may add.

I feel the ship partially split at the surface, and as the ships went down, the speed of descent and the like, caused the complete separation from the keel, and left the stern in the state it is in today. The bow? Well the computer graphic they used in the film titanic, after the complete split, yeah I would agree that’s basically what happened. With the addition of it spinning on the way down spiting debris all over the sea floor, and also explaining why the ship is not facing a western direction. I think it is facing north, is it?

God bless
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P
Posted on: 2005/11/22 0:14
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  clinton
      clinton
Re: Breaking apart
#6

Joined: 2005/1/8
From London UK
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Certainly this is a matter of great interest to all involved with the story of Titanic. I agree with alot of what everyone has said thus far. I have just found it rather fascinating how conflicting the eye witness accounts were about the ship breaking apart. And then some eye witnesses who swore that the ship sank in one piece... Someone must have been lying about the manner in which the ship dissapeared from sight.
Posted on: 2005/11/22 11:17
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  GooseGrl172
      GooseGrl172
Re: Breaking apart
#7

Joined: 2004/10/11
From Maryland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Quote:

clinton wrote:
Certainly this is a matter of great interest to all involved with the story of Titanic. I agree with alot of what everyone has said thus far. I have just found it rather fascinating how conflicting the eye witness accounts were about the ship breaking apart. And then some eye witnesses who swore that the ship sank in one piece... Someone must have been lying about the manner in which the ship dissapeared from sight.


Well you have to remember that it was very dark on the ocean that night. If you've ever been on the ocean (which I'm sure you have), on a moonless night , or even flown over the ocean then you'd know just how dark it can be. Reading the conflicting testimonies has never been a surprise to me. Even on a moon lit night the ocean can be quite dark.

Jessica
Posted on: 2005/11/22 17:58
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  first_matey
      first_matey
Re: Breaking apart
#8

Joined: 2004/11/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
There is no way it could have broken unless the stern was suspended in the air. Any other place and the water would have supported it. Plus, any computer simulation would conclude that that's where it happened.
Posted on: 2005/11/23 2:09
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: Breaking apart
#9

Joined: 2004/11/24
From Santo domingo,DR and New york
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Its was broken part during the sinking as the movie show(1997).
Posted on: 2005/11/23 2:24
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  clinton
      clinton
Re: Breaking apart
#10

Joined: 2005/1/8
From London UK
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Was the stern at 45 degrees or at 90 degrees? That difference would certainly impact on the manner in which passengers fell from the ship as depicted in the movie.
Posted on: 2005/11/23 11:13
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
 Top   Previous Topic   Next Topic
1


 


 You cannot start a new topic.
 You can view topic.
 You cannot reply to posts.
 You cannot edit your posts.
 You cannot delete your posts.
 You cannot add new polls.
 You cannot vote in polls.
 You cannot attach files to posts.
 You cannot post without approval.



Copyright © 2006-2012 Titanic.com
Home Photos Advertise Link to us Flower Box