Current break up theories?

What are the 2024 theories on that part of the sinking? know about th eon a sea of glass and the roy mengot one and do some researchers still believe in a bottom up break up or has that theory been discarded?

Thanks for your answers!
 
What are the 2024 theories on that part of the sinking? know about th eon a sea of glass and the roy mengot one and do some researchers still believe in a bottom up break up or has that theory been discarded?

Thanks for your answers!

I think bottom-up *ONLY* is out. It’s generally accepted that the keel was forced upward first, then the decks up top began to separate immediately after.
 
i have some questions.

1. there was port list yes? when titanic started to breakup keel did bend upwards,while in port list. this should cause the keel bar bending upwards but also twisting to starboard because heavy stern would want break on keel and there was port list,keel bending upwards,decks from top to bottom were breaking apart, if keel did not fail yet it should twist to starboard in location where it breaks away right?

2. how did stern hit the water after breakup? did the stern instantly level on the keel after breakup or it stayed on port list after breaking up and level on the keel after the break? my mind is saying that when ship breaks during portside list the keel bar should twist to starboard because there would be bending and twisting forces. breaking up stern want to level on keel but cant yet as keel bar bent upwards still hold together then shortly after it breaks,from wreck photos i can see the keel has no twisting signs on break points but just bent upwards, then keel probably failed earlier than at breakup time.

3. from metalurgy point,we all know titanic steel quality was not great for our century but for theirs 1900 / 1910 years the steel quality was good for their needs, but if we would make same steel in our century then that steel would be very low quality and would not be certified for shipbuilding.

4.l there could be another potential titanic killer, metal fatigue,if titanic hull plates were brittle and rivets not better then we have recipe for disaster, now add yet final stage of sinking. could it be possible that there was some material fault sush microfractures? rivets were hammered down throught the sockets to connect hull plates,with brittle hull plates and brittle rivets we have one answer,but what about hull plates itself? were they surveyed for that kind of damage?

5. i know that titanic steel was surveyed and samples tested and the results were not bad,just rivets were tragic quality. but i wonder about another thing... did titanic hull plates came from one foundry or titanic hull plates were manufactured in multple locations?
 
Also why would harland & wolff built sup par ships when their quality would be important to satisfy the customer? If harland & wolff started getting cheap on their vessels, it wouldn't be good for both white star and the shipyard. The britannic and olympicalso show harland & wolff building quality too.
 
but you dont want build ships that can breal in two in storm or suffer rivets popping in middle of voyage. i think olympic had the rivets popping problem too
 
the titanic wasn't so weak it'd break during a storm, you should read samuel halpern work I think, the olympic hull was also still strong enough to do the job in the 1930'
 
Back
Top