Tracy Smith
Member
If they were that close, then why weren't the Morse signals responded to?
Californian 5 or 6 miles off My Challenge
- Thread starter Dave Gittins
- Start date
-
- Tags
- californian
Michael F. Koch
Member
Tracy,
It's possible, they were mistaken for a twinkling star. As someone else mentioned, the signal-to-noise ratio was likely high that night. Another explanation, was she was right around 10 miles away which was the limit of the morse lamp. As I stated earlier, going by dead-reckoning and using Lord's position as gospel, the drift would have put Californian 10 miles away. However, Lord's position at 1030 was a little north of what one would expect given her 730 position and course even taking into account the dead reckoning observation. I suppose she could have changed her course in that time, but we wouldn't know that with the scrap log missing.
Regards,
Michael
It's possible, they were mistaken for a twinkling star. As someone else mentioned, the signal-to-noise ratio was likely high that night. Another explanation, was she was right around 10 miles away which was the limit of the morse lamp. As I stated earlier, going by dead-reckoning and using Lord's position as gospel, the drift would have put Californian 10 miles away. However, Lord's position at 1030 was a little north of what one would expect given her 730 position and course even taking into account the dead reckoning observation. I suppose she could have changed her course in that time, but we wouldn't know that with the scrap log missing.
Regards,
Michael
Michael H. Standart
Member
Ahhhhh...let's not forget that the morse lamps in use then were not very powerful. Instead of using searchlights with movable shutters such as what you see today, these things just used low powered bulbs. You wouldn't be able to see them at any worthwhile distance.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Richard A. Krebes
Member
The fact that the officer's on watch on the Californian saw the Carpathia's rockets shortly after the stranger to the south had vanished, and then another ship appear which was undoubtedly the Carpathia herself, to me, indicates that they MUST have been close to the T.
I mean, how could they have seen the Carpathia's rockets AND THEN THE CARPATHIA HERSELF if they were out of sight of the Titanic? It just doesn't jell.
Richard K.
I mean, how could they have seen the Carpathia's rockets AND THEN THE CARPATHIA HERSELF if they were out of sight of the Titanic? It just doesn't jell.
Richard K.
Logan Geen
Member
Lord himself stated in the American Inquiry that they had a pretty powerful morse lamp that should have been seen at about 10 miles (see Wyn Wade's book) but I wouldn't neccessarily believe it.
Logan Geen
Member
Are you addressing me Wood? I will be honest I am an anti-Lordite, but I saw nothing offensive about what I posted. I just thought it was an interesting bit of info.
Michael H. Standart
Member
G'Day Logan, I don't think Erik was taking offence at anything you said or expressing an opinion on the Californian per se. What he was trying to do, and which I can back up, is that the Californian Incident is one of the most devisive issues in the Titanic community short of the salvage issue. The often fiery tone on most of the threads here on ET which discuss the matter demonstrates that in fine fashion.
Even trying to take a nuetral stand on it can get one some very heated responses. Anyway you look at it, and no matter what position you take, discussing the Californian is not for the faint hearted.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Even trying to take a nuetral stand on it can get one some very heated responses. Anyway you look at it, and no matter what position you take, discussing the Californian is not for the faint hearted.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Logan Geen
Member
Thank you for the warning Erik. I will have to tread water carefully here (no pun intended) but I am happy things here are usually mature. That's a plus!
Dave Hudson
Member
I'm no expert in this area, but is it possible that the Titanic's list prohibited her signal from being noticed? By the time that Titanic began morsing to the ship on the horizon, her bow was noticeably submerged. This would have made her lamp much lower to the water than we'd expect. Likewise, the crew standing on the bridge of Titanic would have had a harder time seeing the Californian's signals.
Also, both ships said that they thought they saw a response, but that it was the "masthead light flickering." Titanic's was electric. Perhaps the flicker was in fact the morse lamp, but the atmosphere, ice, haze, etc., made the signal incoherent.
Again, I make no claim that my idea is right. I have no desire to fight over Lord.
David
Also, both ships said that they thought they saw a response, but that it was the "masthead light flickering." Titanic's was electric. Perhaps the flicker was in fact the morse lamp, but the atmosphere, ice, haze, etc., made the signal incoherent.
Again, I make no claim that my idea is right. I have no desire to fight over Lord.
David
David G. Brown
RIP
David -- Yes, as Titanic's bridge sagged lower toward the water its Morse light would have been visible for a shorter distance. This is because of the curve of the earth. Tables have been constructed for quickly calculating the distance to the horizon for any given height. The formula is: Distance in Nautical Miles = 1.169 X sq. root of the height in feet.
When Titanic was floating on its lines, the Morse lamps would have been visible for nearly 10 miles in clear air. By the time the front of the bridge reached the sea, that distance was reduced to less than 5 nautical miles. (1 nm = 6,076 ft)
Two other factors complicate visibility. One is the clarity of the air. A light with a nominal visibility (disregarding the curve of the earth) of 10 miles may only be visible for half that distance in haze or fog.
The second factor is refraction. Sometimes, differences in the density of air or its moisture contant between the observer and the light can play visual tricks. Lights can be seen beyond their geographic ranges. Or, a light that should be seen cannot.
Your guess that the two ships may have seen each other's Morse lights, but could not read them, is likely correct. However, there is no way of knowing for sure...which is why the Californian controversy will never go away.
-- David G. Brown
When Titanic was floating on its lines, the Morse lamps would have been visible for nearly 10 miles in clear air. By the time the front of the bridge reached the sea, that distance was reduced to less than 5 nautical miles. (1 nm = 6,076 ft)
Two other factors complicate visibility. One is the clarity of the air. A light with a nominal visibility (disregarding the curve of the earth) of 10 miles may only be visible for half that distance in haze or fog.
The second factor is refraction. Sometimes, differences in the density of air or its moisture contant between the observer and the light can play visual tricks. Lights can be seen beyond their geographic ranges. Or, a light that should be seen cannot.
Your guess that the two ships may have seen each other's Morse lights, but could not read them, is likely correct. However, there is no way of knowing for sure...which is why the Californian controversy will never go away.
-- David G. Brown
John M. Feeney
Member
David Brown: The formula is: Distance in Nautical Miles = 1.169 X sq. root of the height in feet. ... (1 nm = 6,076 ft)
Hi, David: I've been doing quite a few of these calculations myself lately, and got to wondering why there seems to be so much variation in what should be a fairly common conversion factor (even for a rule of thumb).
My own formula (courtesy of Leslie Reade) is: Distance in Nautical Miles = 1.144 X sq. root of the height in feet. This is pretty close to Andrew Hall's factor of 1.15, used in the "Lights and Distance" article at Dave Billnitzer's web site. And the Manual of Marine Observations (MANMAR; issued by Environment Canada) excerpt at http://www.mid-c.com/manmar/Obse0040.htm states:
On the other hand, the conversion factors both you (1.169) and Parks (1.17) have cited produce a result about 2.5% higher than the Manmar (1.14) formula. I at first thought the reason for this might be that your factors were geared towards results expressed in International (= U.S.) Nautical Miles (6076.1 feet), rather than British Nautical Miles (6080 feet). But that would only account for a minute portion of the difference. (The British Nautical Mile is only 0.064% larger than the U.S. version -- nowhere near that 2.5% variance in results.)
So my question is: Why the "big" difference in these conversion factors? Alternately, where did you and Parks obtain your formulas? I'm curious to know the possible basis for these variations.
Cheers,
John
Hi, David: I've been doing quite a few of these calculations myself lately, and got to wondering why there seems to be so much variation in what should be a fairly common conversion factor (even for a rule of thumb).
My own formula (courtesy of Leslie Reade) is: Distance in Nautical Miles = 1.144 X sq. root of the height in feet. This is pretty close to Andrew Hall's factor of 1.15, used in the "Lights and Distance" article at Dave Billnitzer's web site. And the Manual of Marine Observations (MANMAR; issued by Environment Canada) excerpt at http://www.mid-c.com/manmar/Obse0040.htm states:
On the other hand, the conversion factors both you (1.169) and Parks (1.17) have cited produce a result about 2.5% higher than the Manmar (1.14) formula. I at first thought the reason for this might be that your factors were geared towards results expressed in International (= U.S.) Nautical Miles (6076.1 feet), rather than British Nautical Miles (6080 feet). But that would only account for a minute portion of the difference. (The British Nautical Mile is only 0.064% larger than the U.S. version -- nowhere near that 2.5% variance in results.)
So my question is: Why the "big" difference in these conversion factors? Alternately, where did you and Parks obtain your formulas? I'm curious to know the possible basis for these variations.
Cheers,
John
David G. Brown
RIP
I got my formula from Ho. Pub 9, "Bowditch." Don't have time today, but I will look up the explanation for how they derived it. Perhaps they are factoring in refraction.
In reality, the air does influence how far you can see at any given time. In my book I postulate a situation of refraction called "towering" may have existed that night. If so, the distance objects could be seen would have been somewhat more (the amout unknowable) than the geographic horizon.
--David G. Brown
In reality, the air does influence how far you can see at any given time. In my book I postulate a situation of refraction called "towering" may have existed that night. If so, the distance objects could be seen would have been somewhat more (the amout unknowable) than the geographic horizon.
--David G. Brown
Parks Stephenson
Member
I also use Bowditch as a guide, if it makes any difference...it's pretty much a standard nowadays.
To me, this argument seems to be quibbling...there's so many variables at play that a 5% difference in calculation styles/conversion factors (or even a 5-10 degree list) is negligible for all practical purposes.
There is no way in this reality that we can discern exactly what the Californian officers saw or should have seen without standing on that bridge on that night. The books will give an idea of what is theoretically possible, but in no way could they break through the fog of uncertainty created by the eyewitnesses.
Parks
To me, this argument seems to be quibbling...there's so many variables at play that a 5% difference in calculation styles/conversion factors (or even a 5-10 degree list) is negligible for all practical purposes.
There is no way in this reality that we can discern exactly what the Californian officers saw or should have seen without standing on that bridge on that night. The books will give an idea of what is theoretically possible, but in no way could they break through the fog of uncertainty created by the eyewitnesses.
Parks
Similar threads
