Adam McGuirk
Member
Yeah that would be nice to have one here.
Adam
Adam
-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Captain Lord and the Californian Please Read
- Thread starter Adam McGuirk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- californian captain lord
Melinda Handshoe
Member
I agree, wouldn't that be so much fun.
Mark Baber
RIP
>Is there a place where people chat about Titanic?
#titanic on dalnet, Fridays and Sundays at 9 PM Eastern (US) time, 0100 UTC this time of year.
#titanic on dalnet, Fridays and Sundays at 9 PM Eastern (US) time, 0100 UTC this time of year.
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Hi Melinda,
You asked about the sound of the rockets. Well, seeing as I'm doing a little work on that subject, I'll put a little of what I've worked out up here now.
You've been referred to Dave Billnitzer's excellent website already. Unfortunately, one thing he gets wrong is the physics involved of the sound of the rockets. Dave correctly states that sound intensity falls off as the square of the distance. What he misses is that we perceive sound logarithmically. You've heard of the decibel? Well, when the sound intensity drops to 10% of its level, it only looses 10 decibels. Similarly when it drops to 1%, it only looses another 10 decibels (a total of 20 now). For the record, there's some more complications involving the fact that low frequency sounds (like a rocket boom) don't travel well over flat surfaces (like the mirror flat sea that night).
To work out how loud the rockets were 10 miles away (for the sake of argument), we also need to know how loud they are at some other distance. Dave gives a figure of 125 dB for rockets, but with no indication of the distance from the rocket. I've done some preliminary calculations based on the sound of some pretty loud fireworks that I was observing at a distance of 1 mile.
Anyway enough waffle, onto the numbers. At 10 miles, I get figures of about 30 dB. This is loud enough to hear (it's about a whisper), but there's one more point to consider. Sound takes about 50 seconds to travel 10 miles, so each flash would be followed, nearly a minute later, by a very quiet sound. If the crew of the Californian had been able to link each sound with each rocket, especially with other noises on board, I'd be damn surprised!
So in essence, I believe the sounds would have been audible. The reasons they weren't noted were 1) they were very quiet and 2) they were extremely hard to link to the observed flashes.
That turned out to be quite long! I'm going to put all the details on my website eventually with some decent diagrams to help out.
Cheers
Paul
You asked about the sound of the rockets. Well, seeing as I'm doing a little work on that subject, I'll put a little of what I've worked out up here now.
You've been referred to Dave Billnitzer's excellent website already. Unfortunately, one thing he gets wrong is the physics involved of the sound of the rockets. Dave correctly states that sound intensity falls off as the square of the distance. What he misses is that we perceive sound logarithmically. You've heard of the decibel? Well, when the sound intensity drops to 10% of its level, it only looses 10 decibels. Similarly when it drops to 1%, it only looses another 10 decibels (a total of 20 now). For the record, there's some more complications involving the fact that low frequency sounds (like a rocket boom) don't travel well over flat surfaces (like the mirror flat sea that night).
To work out how loud the rockets were 10 miles away (for the sake of argument), we also need to know how loud they are at some other distance. Dave gives a figure of 125 dB for rockets, but with no indication of the distance from the rocket. I've done some preliminary calculations based on the sound of some pretty loud fireworks that I was observing at a distance of 1 mile.
Anyway enough waffle, onto the numbers. At 10 miles, I get figures of about 30 dB. This is loud enough to hear (it's about a whisper), but there's one more point to consider. Sound takes about 50 seconds to travel 10 miles, so each flash would be followed, nearly a minute later, by a very quiet sound. If the crew of the Californian had been able to link each sound with each rocket, especially with other noises on board, I'd be damn surprised!
So in essence, I believe the sounds would have been audible. The reasons they weren't noted were 1) they were very quiet and 2) they were extremely hard to link to the observed flashes.
That turned out to be quite long! I'm going to put all the details on my website eventually with some decent diagrams to help out.
Cheers
Paul
Melinda Handshoe
Member
And I thought you could only hear them for a couple of miles, wow.
Whether it was Titanic firing the rockets or not, shouldnt the Californian have done something?
Lets say for the sake of arguement that it wasnt Titanic firing the fockets but a "mystery" ship in between.
They still should have done something!!!
-Don
Lets say for the sake of arguement that it wasnt Titanic firing the fockets but a "mystery" ship in between.
They still should have done something!!!
-Don
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Hi Don,
You're preaching to the choir in my case! There's no question in my mind that the officers of Californian (not just Lord) should have done much more than they did (waking the wireless operator would have been a start...)
Hi Melinda,
You should note that I'm not an expect in acoustics and atmospherics. There may well be other effects to take into account (for example, the sea contained icebergs and wasn't totally smooth). Still, the numbers shouldn't be too far off.
Cheers
Paul
You're preaching to the choir in my case! There's no question in my mind that the officers of Californian (not just Lord) should have done much more than they did (waking the wireless operator would have been a start...)
Hi Melinda,
You should note that I'm not an expect in acoustics and atmospherics. There may well be other effects to take into account (for example, the sea contained icebergs and wasn't totally smooth). Still, the numbers shouldn't be too far off.
Cheers
Paul
Melinda Handshoe
Member
Hey, I agree, if the Californian saw rockets they should have done something.
DBillnitzer
Member
Hi Paul:
Can you explain more about what you mean by perceiving sound "logarithmically?" Or do you have a reference I can look at? If so, I will make the necessary mathematical corrections to my site. I guess I am trying to understand how or why we measure the diminishment of sound with inverse squares, but hear it in logarithms.
The bigger point you made, and that I was making, is that whatever sound the rockets made, at ten miles it would not have been the big bang that Lord's defenders misleadingly insist it should have been.
Melinda, you asked up above why Fleet and Lee did not see another ship's lights before the collision, or even until much later. And that's a good question.
I think a more interesting one is this: how did Fleet and Lee *miss* seeing another ship's lights for so long, when officers on the bridge saw them very soon after the collision - right around midnight, or as soon as the men arrived on deck to start turning out the boats?
Can you explain more about what you mean by perceiving sound "logarithmically?" Or do you have a reference I can look at? If so, I will make the necessary mathematical corrections to my site. I guess I am trying to understand how or why we measure the diminishment of sound with inverse squares, but hear it in logarithms.
The bigger point you made, and that I was making, is that whatever sound the rockets made, at ten miles it would not have been the big bang that Lord's defenders misleadingly insist it should have been.
Melinda, you asked up above why Fleet and Lee did not see another ship's lights before the collision, or even until much later. And that's a good question.
I think a more interesting one is this: how did Fleet and Lee *miss* seeing another ship's lights for so long, when officers on the bridge saw them very soon after the collision - right around midnight, or as soon as the men arrived on deck to start turning out the boats?
Melinda Handshoe
Member
Well I honestly didn't think it could be heard even that far, I was expecting about 2 miles being the limit.
Can someone please answer the question of why the lookouts did not see any lights from another ship untill after the collision.
Thank you,
Melinda
Can someone please answer the question of why the lookouts did not see any lights from another ship untill after the collision.
Thank you,
Melinda
Adam McGuirk
Member
Melinda, my guess may be that the lookouts were so focused on what was ahead that they didn't really look out over to the side.
Adam
Adam
Timothy Brandsoy
Guest
Is there any evidence that they missed seeing the lights before the accident?
They were in the crows nest to observe as lookouts for icebergs, growlers and haze. If the lights were off their course and far enough away it may not of been of importance to them.
As for sound, doesn't temperature, fog, wind and other atmospheric considerations determine how far away it is heard?
Tim
They were in the crows nest to observe as lookouts for icebergs, growlers and haze. If the lights were off their course and far enough away it may not of been of importance to them.
As for sound, doesn't temperature, fog, wind and other atmospheric considerations determine how far away it is heard?
Tim
Adam McGuirk
Member
Thats right Tim. I mean they knew they weren't the only ship in that vicinity that night, they probally all ways saw lights.
Adam
Adam
DBillnitzer
Member
Melinda:
See if you can find David Brown's book, "Last Log of the Titanic" for a seaman's explanation of why the lookouts didn't see other ships' lights off to the sides. Timothy's and Adam's explanation pretty much concur with David Brown's. The lookouts were on duty to watch out for objects in the ship's path, anything that might cause danger of collision, and specifically to keep an eye out for ice and small growlers - not objects miles away on one side or the other.
Men on the bridge spotted lights ahead almost immediately after the collision, when Titanic had stopped and swung around enough to face north; ie, facing the Californian almost directly head on.
See if you can find David Brown's book, "Last Log of the Titanic" for a seaman's explanation of why the lookouts didn't see other ships' lights off to the sides. Timothy's and Adam's explanation pretty much concur with David Brown's. The lookouts were on duty to watch out for objects in the ship's path, anything that might cause danger of collision, and specifically to keep an eye out for ice and small growlers - not objects miles away on one side or the other.
Men on the bridge spotted lights ahead almost immediately after the collision, when Titanic had stopped and swung around enough to face north; ie, facing the Californian almost directly head on.
John M. Feeney
Member
"Can someone please answer the question of why the lookouts did not see any lights from another ship untill after the collision."
Yeah, what they said.
But seriously, I don't think anybody *can* say for sure. Fred Fleet himself couldn't explain it, years later when Leslie Reade interviewed him.
But the question itself may be slightly backwards. Even as close as 8-10 miles -- most people seem to think that's a tad *too* close nowadays, but not by much -- Californian would have been be a mere speck of light on the horizon amidst a star-studded, moonless sky. She wasn't a passenger liner proper (and she didn't have any passengers that run), so she wouldn't feature any characteristic blaze or glare of light on the decks (for the benefit of the passengers, not the ship). She was only about half Titanic's length. And Leyland liners were typically so "low-slung" in profile that they were occasionally humorously described as "two masts and a funnel passing to the eastward", or similar wording.
Rather than "How could they miss it?", the more realistic question might be, "How really likely were they to see it at that distance?"
And Boxhall said the red and green lights weren't initially visible, which is consistent with Californian's heading before she swung around to show them. So all they could have seen for awhile was a white light, perhaps. Not easy to pick out from all those stars, especially since the ships were both stationary.
George Behe has an excellent new page on his web site, which depicts the apparent size of Titanic at various distances -- none terribly extreme. It's amazingly good (I'd done something similar myself), and you'd be surprised how downright tiny even a behemoth like Titanic can look a few miles away, especially bow or stern on.
http://ourworld.comp userve.com/homepages /Carpathia/
See what ya think.
Yeah, what they said.
But seriously, I don't think anybody *can* say for sure. Fred Fleet himself couldn't explain it, years later when Leslie Reade interviewed him.
But the question itself may be slightly backwards. Even as close as 8-10 miles -- most people seem to think that's a tad *too* close nowadays, but not by much -- Californian would have been be a mere speck of light on the horizon amidst a star-studded, moonless sky. She wasn't a passenger liner proper (and she didn't have any passengers that run), so she wouldn't feature any characteristic blaze or glare of light on the decks (for the benefit of the passengers, not the ship). She was only about half Titanic's length. And Leyland liners were typically so "low-slung" in profile that they were occasionally humorously described as "two masts and a funnel passing to the eastward", or similar wording.
Rather than "How could they miss it?", the more realistic question might be, "How really likely were they to see it at that distance?"
And Boxhall said the red and green lights weren't initially visible, which is consistent with Californian's heading before she swung around to show them. So all they could have seen for awhile was a white light, perhaps. Not easy to pick out from all those stars, especially since the ships were both stationary.
George Behe has an excellent new page on his web site, which depicts the apparent size of Titanic at various distances -- none terribly extreme. It's amazingly good (I'd done something similar myself), and you'd be surprised how downright tiny even a behemoth like Titanic can look a few miles away, especially bow or stern on.
http://ourworld.comp userve.com/homepages /Carpathia/
See what ya think.
Similar threads
