After the collision

[David Welch]

Ok I hope this is the right place to post this because i didn't see any other place were to post how the Titanic could have survied a bit longer after hitting the iceberg.

I know this is abit off the wall but could the Titanic have reversed its Engines and ran in reverse which would have pulled the water out of the hull. My teacher said it had a name something effect but i can't remember it now. If anyone knows please let me know so i know what i'm talking about(lol).
Thanks,
Dave
Please Post.

[Moderator's notes: 1. This post, originally posted in another topic has been moved to here. 2. The title of this thread has been revised, to better reflect what is being discussed. JDT]

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I know this is abit off the wall but could the Titanic have reversed its Engines and ran in reverse which would have pulled the water out of the hull.<<

No.

It might have served to slow down the rate of ingrsss a bit, but I doubt it would have been to any signifigent degree and that's because of the water outside which is at a higher pressure (Up to two atmospheres) is going into an area of lesser pressue (Sea level) inside the hull.

 

[Andrew J. Evano]

I might be wrong here (physics isnt my strongest discipline, but Ive been on the water enough) but wouldnt the ship need a jackrabbit type of move to kick this off....similar to a crew shell after the catch. Meaning, wouldnt there need to be a move from a speed of zero to X in an extremely short amount of time?.......otherwise, the g force required would never get ahead of the rushing water.

 

[David Welch]

Michael and Andrew, Thanks for your info its quite helpful......well scratch that idea off the list. I don't know if your allowed to have a another thread in a thread and if we can't i'm sure it will be closed but it won't hurt to ask? So do you guys have any ways the Titanic could have stayed afloat a little bit longer just enough till other ships arrived?
(GO TIGERS)
Thanks
Dave

 

[Brian Ahern]

David,
The problem with any method that involved the ship moving forwards or backwards would be that it would make it impossible to launch the lifeboats, and thus wouldn't do anybody much good.

 

[Jack Coburn]

I'm currently reading David G. Brown's last log (Great book too, i might add). I've just read the chapter where I think he suggested that the decision to continue ahead at slow speed after the collision may have been the factor that knocked the final nail in to Titanic's coffin.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

David: Was it the Bernoulli effect that your teacher was referring to?

 

[Adam Lang]

Just think about what a mess lowering the lifeboats would be. That process couldn't be accomplished if the ship was moving. The moment a boat hits the water, it would be pulled around all over the place by the falls attached to a moving ship.

Second, the boats in the aft section of the ship might be exposed to a lot of danger. A boat could easily be drawn to the suction of the propellors and devoured just like what happened on the Britanic when boats were lowered while the ship was in motion.

 

[Andrew J. Evano]

I also think for that effect to work there would have to be little in the way of obstructions (in addition to the speed I mentioned before). An example would be driving your car after it has rained. If you notice the water on your hood and reverse the car take note of the speed and rapid acceleration required to move the water.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Brian, Adam: If moving the ship were able to keep it afloat then there would be no need to launch lifeboats.

 

[Adam Lang]

"If moving the ship were able to keep it afloat then there would be no need to launch lifeboats."

Yes, that would be true if the reversing the ship would keep it afloat, but doing so would only add a few minutes of time. Given the ship's reverse speed (lowered because of drag caused by incoming water), a significant amount of incoming water would still be able to enter the ship. Add the extra time of launching lifeboats while the ship's moving, and you'll probably find that it would just be more of a hassle and much less efficient than if the ship wasn't moving at all.

 

[David G. Brown]

Curiously enough, Charles H. Lightoller successfully backed his navy ship to port during WW-I after ramming and sinking a German U-boat. The damage to the bow of Lightoller's ship threatened to sink it. So, he backed home. Did his experience in Titanic give him the idea?

-- David G. Brown

 

[David Welch]

Hi,
Is there any goods books to look for about the life of Charles H.Lightoller. I really want to know about his cruise over to Dunkirk (hope thats spelled right).
Thanks,
David

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Hello David,

Have a look at the "Crew Research" and "Titanic Books" topics for books regarding Charles Lightoller.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>If you notice the water on your hood and reverse the car take note of the speed and rapid acceleration required to move the water.<<

Doesn't quite work that way. What's at issue here is not water lying static on the hood of the car but water which is getting into the ship from the outside of the vessel. Water pressure increases the deeper you go, and you can't really force something under lesser pressure into an area of greater pressure...at least not without a lot of mechanical help which just wasn't available.

What backing down might have accomplished would be to slow the rate of ingress into the ship since you wouldn't be forcing the bow headlong into the sea.

The catch?

Samuel Halpern and Adam Lang nailed it: You can't launch lifeboats while the ship is moving. The Titanic was well away from any really close point of landfall and there was no way the sinking could be stopped. In light of that, the options available could only range from bad to worse to downright unworkable. In this case, the least of the evils was to try and get as many people off the ship as possible before she went down and that's how they played it.

>>So do you guys have any ways the Titanic could have stayed afloat a little bit longer just enough till other ships arrived?<<

No. Not really. I have quite a bit of training in shipboard damage control thanks to the Navy which is pretty extensive at even it's most basic level. The problem here is that what I learned was passed on to me and all of my shipmates by way of combat experience aquired through two world wars, and we had resources provided to make the most of that which the officers and crew of the Titanic did not have!

They didn't have damage control lockers, shoring or plugging kits, and even if they had, they had no diving gear to get down to where the damage was. You can't plug it or patch it if you can't get to it. The most you can do is try to confine it as long as possible by way of the installed pumps that they had as well as any hoses that they could rig.