hahahaha

They may be beutiful to look at but at the same time can be deadly,as in the case of the Titanic. Still there is enough ice in one of those things to make a lot of margaritas ole!

they're beautiful yet kind of scary...

Never heard that myself but I suppose it is possible. Just showing this picture to help give an Idea of the scale of these thing's

Attached file:   iceberg.jpg (40.28 KB)

---

Quote:i saw that picture before. when i read the story of the picture it said that there was scratches of paint on its side.

Pretty sure there is all sort's of data on under the mud damage using sonar but I don't have that info to hand so think we can leave that as a discussion for further on.

To my recollection they did not run the test on modern steel, I remember they employed an english firm to remake steel to the exact specification's of the original ship. Then put it in a sort of clamp and tested it, it perished well under the estimate that would rule such an idea out, so basically the outcome of the documentary was that the rivet's did have a major role in how the ship sank, if not the biggest, still there must have been all sort's of gashes from the berg to aid the sinking process. The metal sample used was then compaired to the real titanic steel (sample taken from the big piece) and both suffered the same sort of problems with the small crack's formed by the slag mixture. Although they did not test for the difference in today's steel, I am fairly sure there was a mention that today's steel is at the very least 30% stronger. Plus the fact today our ship's (modern ones from like the 80s onwards) are double if not triple hulled so it's a bit unfair to compare the two in that respect. So therefor I would agree somewhat to you'r statement,

'I still seem to think it is somewhat irrelovent to an extent'

The experiment was a bit more scientific as you can read from up there than hittin a chunk of iron with a hammr lol!

The documentary also went into great detail about who was to blame for the sinking, I bet hardly any of you would point the fingure at the calafornian's operator, when infact it was he who did not encode the message properly (as in saying it is an urgent important message) so the Titanic operator's were justified to an extent in not bothering, they had work to do. Still you cant blame him, he was only trying to do his job, but you see, smll error like that contributed to the sinking.

So much fuss is also made about how the lookout's did not have binocular's so they could not see. Irrelvant, back then spotter's used there eyes and only used the binocular's to confirm a sighting, so if anything having them would of slowed the message getting to the bridge as they would check first with the binocular's. Also in a pitch black night like that with no moon or wave's binocualr's would make no differnece really, and the fact it was so cold impeeds your eye sight anyway.

I could go on and on, so Instead I will go find out the name of this documentary and tell you all when I find it .

Good day,

Martyn

Interesting Martyn. I wish I could have seen that documentary.

Although this scientific study of the mixtures in the iron is interesting, I still seem to think it is somewhat irrelovent to an extent.

I remember Charles Pellegrino in "Ghosts of the Titanic" stating that he saw puncture wounds in the side of the ship near the bottom hull, as if a bazooka had been fired at the ship.

He also stated that a (research ship?) he was on hit a small berg or growler, and it produced a similar puncture (this was modern day steel mind you).

I guess maybe the difference in metal quality could have produced more flooding, but I seems to me if the iceberg could punch a hole the size of a coffee mug in the middle of a hullplate, not many rivits on earth (no matter how they are made) could stand against that force. I don't know!

Do you know if they ran tests to see if modern day steel could stand up the the same damage (other than hitting a chunk of steel with a hammer as they did on previous documentaries?)

Its topics like this that really make me wish they could really see that iceberg damage under the mud!

Quote:

Actually, after a study by an American naval accident researcher, the Titanic's rivet mixture (slag) was wrong meaning they perished under less pressure than they should of. For those who don't know, slag is a mixture that is I guess supposed to make the metal stronger, however getting it wrong can make them weaker in the 1st place. Lot's and lot's of tiny fractures in the metal of the rivet's meant it they just gave way to the pressure of the berg. Bursting basically, leaving a good inch wide hole for water to come in. If we take into consideration, lot's and lot's of these rivet's did this, it would explain how the water was gettin it. The documentary also went into explain about how water was actually coming in from the bottom. Will have a look for it and tell you the name, it was a great documentary. Very scientific experiment, couldnt see a flaw in what the guy said really.

This is the widely belived real ice berg that brought the ship down, ofcourse we can never know if it was, but this was taken in the morning of april 15th 1912 and with no other berg's within mile's of it, it is a good bet that this was indeed the fatal berg. Doesnt seem like much huh?

Attached file:   theberg.jpg (46.53 KB)

---

Quote:

I agree with your last statement. I get tired of pointing the finger of blame at Titanic's rivits and hullplates. People today I think blame the methods that were used back then and not take into consideration that this is what they knew; meaning, that it was not faulty by their standards, just our standards, 94 years later.

Its as if saying that the Confederates lost the battle of Gettysburg because they had muzzel loaders instead of M1 grands. If their guns were made better with modern technology, they might have won!

I guess that I find this discussion irrelovent because no matter how strong her rivits would have been, that iceberg would have opened her up. The forces of physics were just too much.

Good statement about Olympic. Although she did not hit an iceberg like her sister, she did get hit by the Hawk, and the ship rammed a German U-boat and I think she rammed and sank a Nantucket light ship. Her rivits did not cause her doom!