Coal and Sparks during Break-up

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Ioannis, you are doing history by fiat again.

Sorry, no idea what you mean with that.

There is a whole thread on this, so I won't regurgitate those arguments, but suffice it to say there evidence the boilers have damage caused specifically by the implosion.

Which boilers? BR #2? BR #1?

In fact, evidence from the First World War also supports that Titanic's boilers could fail, stoked down or not.

Ships had different types of boilers, Titanic's are from scotch-type which are (generally said) not to easily explode.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I don't think so. I am fairly certain, and by fairly I am as close to certain as I can possibly get until someone manages to get an ROV into the boiler rooms, that Beauchamp's testimony is more accurate than Barrett's.

And as you know, both Beauchamp's and Barrett's testimony matches perfectly until the impact. Barrett says that water came gushing into BR 6; whereas Beauchamp perfectly describes everything Barrett does until the collision.

After the collision Beauchamp says there was no water, and the firemen calmly finished stoking down the boilers. When Beauchamp is ordered up on deck, he does report water; however, he says that water is slowly seeping up from the stoker plates on the floor.

Aside that this had been discussed several times on other threats, others confirm Barretts version like leading stoker Hendrickson.

 

[Rancor]

Ioannis, you are doing history by fiat again. There is a whole thread on this, so I won't regurgitate those arguments, but suffice it to say there evidence the boilers have damage caused specifically by the implosion.

In fact, evidence from the First World War also supports that Titanic's boilers could fail, stoked down or not.

Would have to agree with Ioannis on this one. Lots of testimony about boiler room one never being lit.

I suspect you are referring to BR2 as visible in the wreck?

Regarding Beauchamp and Barratt, if you put Beauchamp in the forward end of BR5 his testimony matches Barratt's perfectly.

 

[Kyle Naber]

I think there was either sparks from gyrations from the collapse of the funnel itself, sparks from the break, or ignition of coal dust in the uptakes.

 

[Ada]

Well, I wasn't of course there but I'm pretty certain we would be dealing with an implosion rather than an explosion, followed by a fireball. The sparks visible from outside could be the "remnants" of the fireball that erupted below.

We do have eye-witness accounts of later steam shipwrecks that describe exactly such a sequence of events when cold water floods the boilers. I'll post a link to a part of an interview with a survivor of the SS Carl D.Bradley, where he describes this during the sinking of his ship:

 

[Doug Criner]

When the throttles are suddenly shut for a coal-fired steam boiler, there will be upset conditions that result in unburned fuel coming into the stack. That could well account for the visible sparks, etc.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

Hello, Kiefer here, would like to ask a question where is this fountain of sparks coming from during the break-up? so far to my knowledge the only survivor who mentioned this was Esther Hart, on which she says millions and millions flew up, just after she describes the break-up.

(Fig 1 The Sparks from Break-up, Ctto. On A Sea of Glass Animation by Part Time Explorer, and The Authors of OASOG; Tad Fitch, J Kent Layton, Bill Wormstedt et.al)

Esther Hart's Testimony:
"We got away from the ship, for a safe distance, for there was no doubt now about her sinking. The front portion of her was pointing downwards, and she appeared to be breaking in halves, then when a might, and tearing sob as of some gigantic thing extinct with life, the front portion of her dived, for that is the only word I could use to properly describe it, dived into the sea, and the after part with a heavy list, also disappeared for as the vessel sank million and millions of sparks flew up, and lit everything around us..."

I would love to know if there are other accounts as well that may support that claim? and to explain why that's there in the animation? what is the causes of the sparks? loose or broken wires? boiler coals or ashes lit? or coal embers? Metal colliding creating sparks, or as it broke apart?

So far to my Knowledge it's just Esther Hart saying it and Personally I think it's caused by loose wirings and embers from boilers

(Fig 2, The Sparks and The Fall of the "Forward" Tower/ 3rd Funnel Casing, Ctto. On A Sea of Glass Animation by Part Time Explorer, and The Authors of OASOG; Tad Fitch, J Kent Layton, Bill Wormstedt et.al)

Thank you to whoever responds in advance,

Sincerely, Kiefer

 

[Michael H. Standart]

When metal is tearing apart while grinding against metal in other places, I would expect to see something of a fireworks display.

 

[J Kent Layton]

Kiefer,

Yes, the sparks were absolutely an event that transpired during the breakup, and what you see in the animation was carefully crafted to try and represent what numerous eyewitnesses reported -- including Esther Hart, Charlotte Collyer, and John Thayer. Please see On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic, Appendix N: The Breakup, for further information. As Michael replied above, it was very likely to have been caused by the rending of metal, the movement of metal across metal surfaces, and the breakage of electrical lines throughout the tear areas, among other things.

Kent

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

Kiefer,

Yes, the sparks were absolutely an event that transpired during the breakup, and what you see in the animation was carefully crafted to try and represent what numerous eyewitnesses reported -- including Esther Hart, Charlotte Collyer, and John Thayer. Please see On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic, Appendix N: The Breakup, for further information. As Michael replied above, it was very likely to have been caused by the rending of metal, the movement of metal across metal surfaces, and the breakage of electrical lines throughout the tear areas, among other things.

Kent

Thanks For Replying Mr. Kent,

there's also this one question that I also wanted to ask there is a change in the breakup angle from the book and the animation that is being showed on YouTube. In The Book it shows an angle of about 26-30 which is different from what is shown in YouTube or the Animation rather, which is a 19-23 degree angle which seemed like it, any reason to as to why it is different from the book? will there be any changes made? or a revised version of the book with the new research? Break-up seems different too that it shows the "Forward Tower" or the area where the 3rd funnel stands is separate to the stern already.

(Fig 1. Ctto. On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic; Tad Fitch, J Kent Layton, Bill Wormstedt et.al)

-Kiefer

 

[Incony]

Thanks For Replying Mr. Kent,

there's also this one question that I also wanted to ask there is a change in the breakup angle from the book and the animation that is being showed on YouTube. In The Book it shows an angle of about 26-30 which is different from what is shown in YouTube or the Animation rather, which is a 19-23 degree angle which seemed like it, any reason to as to why it is different from the book? will there be any changes made? or a revised version of the book with the new research? Break-up seems different too that it shows the "Forward Tower" or the area where the 3rd funnel stands is separate to the stern already.

View attachment 77895
(Fig 1. Ctto. On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic; Tad Fitch, J Kent Layton, Bill Wormstedt et.al)

-Kiefer

As the ship fractured. and also water poured in, there would also be upward rush of air, for any lit fire, such a sudden rush of air will produce sparks, since its very much like the action of a bellows, on a metal working fire, such as a blacksmith might use.. the same effect happens on a bonfire, any fire where the hot air current causes still burning fragments to be carried away... sudden disturbance of any coal fire will produce sparks.. and the titanic breaking up, and the sudden movement of the still lit fires, is such an event..?

 

[Brody Tarrant]

I think the reason spark shot out of the second funnel is due to the fact that coal dust being ignited.

 

[Brody Tarrant]

As the ship fractured. and also water poured in, there would also be upward rush of air, for any lit fire, such a sudden rush of air will produce sparks, since its very much like the action of a bellows, on a metal working fire, such as a blacksmith might use.. the same effect happens on a bonfire, any fire where the hot air current causes still burning fragments to be carried away... sudden disturbance of any coal fire will produce sparks.. and the titanic breaking up, and the sudden movement of the still lit fires, is such an event..?

Yes I have never thout of the air rush that would happen as a result of the breck up that is a fun littel bit of insight.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

I think the reason spark shot out of the second funnel is due to the fact that coal dust being ignited.

There are three possible reasons for it, some that I have found when I researched, it was either;

-Coal dust ignition
-Minor boiler explosion in room 3 or 2
-Wires snapping releasing sparks on funnels

 

[Cam Houseman]

Thanks For Replying Mr. Kent,

there's also this one question that I also wanted to ask there is a change in the breakup angle from the book and the animation that is being showed on YouTube. In The Book it shows an angle of about 26-30 which is different from what is shown in YouTube or the Animation rather, which is a 19-23 degree angle which seemed like it, any reason to as to why it is different from the book? will there be any changes made? or a revised version of the book with the new research? Break-up seems different too that it shows the "Forward Tower" or the area where the 3rd funnel stands is separate to the stern already.

View attachment 77895
(Fig 1. Ctto. On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic; Tad Fitch, J Kent Layton, Bill Wormstedt et.al)

-Kiefer

Hi Kiefer! How're you?


If the Deckhouse debris supposedly encompasses the A-Deck pantry, it couldn't have split at the surface-Joughin was in there at the Breakup.

(BOT Inquiry):
6039. Then, after having thrown these deck chairs overboard, did you go up to the boat deck again?
- I went to the deck pantry.

6040. Tell us what happened?
- I went to the deck pantry, and while I was in there I thought I would take a drink of water, and while I was getting the drink of water I heard a kind of a crash as if something had buckled, as if part of the ship had buckled, and then I heard a rush overhead.

6041. Do you mean a rush of people?
- Yes, a rush of people overhead on the deck.

6042. Is the deck pantry on A deck?
- Yes.

6043. So that the deck above would be the boat deck?
- Yes, I could hear it.

6044. You could hear it?
- Yes.



The ship, in my opinion, likely had a higher angle between 26-29 degrees. Olaus Abelseth testified in the US Inquiry that the angle was so steep, that people couldn't keep their balance.

"I was standing there, and I asked my brother-in-law if he could swim and he said no. I asked my cousin if he could swim and he said no. So we could see the water coming up, the bow of the ship was going down, and there was a kind of an explosion. We could hear the popping and cracking, and the deck raised up and got so steep that the people could not stand on their feet on the deck. So they fell down and slid on the deck into the water right on the ship."

Mrs. Ryerson's deposition/Affidavit describes the breakup:

"I was in the bow of the boat with my daughter and turned to see the great ship take a plunge toward the bow, the two forward funnels seemed to lean and then she seemed to break in half as if cut with a knife, and as the bow went under the lights went out; the stern stood up for several minutes, black against the stars, and then that, too, plunged down, and there was no sound for what seemed like hours, and then began the cries for help of people drowning all around us, which seemed to go on forever."

IMO, the Book's angle is more accurate. What's more, Wilding calculated that an angle of more than 33 degrees would dislodge the Boilers and Engines, so a range between 25-30 degrees would be accurate.

And, what if the deckhouse debris section stayed with the Bow, or was carried along the Bow's slipstream, and that's why it was deposited Southeast of the Bow?

But that's just my two cents.