Did the bulkhead collapse or not

[Michael H. Standart]

>>he reprogramed some ships to shoot at their own team's dummy ship(s).<<

WHOA!!!!! I'll bet that made him a real popular guy with everyone involved. I take it that they missed.

>>if you think about it the back imploded, hundreds of pounds of pressure were on the bulkheads, i beleive that if they didn't implode, they suffered a large amount of damage.<<

Oppos...sorry I missed that one above. Matthew, you may have a point there though perhaps not for the reasons you think. If the spaces on all sides were flooded solid, pressure would have been in equilibrium so in and of itself, there would be no damage. The devil in that detail would be the spaces with air trapped inside. Once they gave up the ghost, just about anything in the way is going to get torn up when they cave in. I'm reasonbly certain that at least some of the damage to the stern today is a consequence of that.

Think of what happens when you step on an eggshell.

 

[Robert T. Paige]

James Cameron's depiction of the separation and sinking of the stern section shows water spouting out from openings in the deck, etc. as the stern sinks, as if all the air inside would have been displaced with water. On the other hand, the pictures comparing the wreckage of the stern section compared with the wreckage of the forward section show the stern section more or less in shambles and the forward section at least more intact than the stern . How to account for the difference ?

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Hi David,

I've sent you a PM.

Hi Robert,

I'm not so sure as to Cameron's depiction, but it would seem logical that quantities of air were 'forced out' of the stern since it flooded and went under much more quickly than the bow. I agree with that.

In my view, the stern's chaotic condition -- in part -- backs up this idea. I do wonder exactly what condition the stern was in just before it hit the ocean floor. It was some force that wrenched the propellers up and the bossing, and I wonder how far the collapse of the decks can be attributed to the impact. What do you think?

Best wishes,

Mark.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>How to account for the difference ?<<

Jim Cameron's portrayal may not be that far of the mark. Take a look a films of some real sinkings, and you see much the same thing happening in terms of trapped air being forced out of any nearby openings as the remainder of the hull floods.

Be mindful of the fact that just because some or even most of the air is forced out this way does not mean that all of it is. Some compartments, particularly those deep within the hull will still hold some air. If the hull goes deep enough, the compartment where it is will collpase.

>>how far the collapse of the decks can be attributed to the impact. What do you think?<<

I would attribute a lot of the damage to the impact with the bottom, Mark. Implosions didn't do that number on the propellor wings you mention. Implosions weakened the structure, but figure on what happens when the thing slams into the bottom the way the stern had to.

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Hi Michael,

quote:

Implosions didn't do that number on the propellor wings you mention. Implosions weakened the structure, but figure on what happens when the thing slams into the bottom the way the stern had to.

It is a key point with regard to the emphasis of the impact, for sure. If only we had a clearer picture of the extent to which the decks at the forward end of the stern began to collapse as the ship was breaking apart, although numerous forensic analyses have had their part to play.

Best wishes,

Mark.​

 

[matthew ewing]

actually michael, they did hit the dummy ships, he got an honerable discharge, cause he said terrorist could do it. about the bulkheads, if you think about it,they probably inploded long before it settled on the ground. I think that the water pressure, on the air-filled ones would have proved to be more than the ship's compartments could handle very quickly. but, i guess we'll never know for sure.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>actually michael, they did hit the dummy ships,<<

Whew...okay...good to hear that.

>>about the bulkheads, if you think about it,they probably inploded long before it settled on the ground.<<

If you check the inquiry transcripts, you'll note that a numbr of survivors described hearing explosions after the stern section finally disappeared. While some speculated that these may have been boiler explosions, these events far more likely were the remaining air filled compartments imploding.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

>>If you check the inquiry transcripts, you'll note that a numbr of survivors described hearing explosions after the stern section finally disappeared.

Hi, Michael!

I'm glad someone (you) finally mentioned that. Muffled "explosions" from beneath the surface, but not the sort they expected to hear. That is to say, not boilers.

Roy

 

[matthew ewing]

I just said what he said, he just changed it. I didn't say anything about the boilers. Like I said, the rooms would have imploded, mainly do to the pressures of being that deep. what brought up the boilers, I think those things would have went out before the back ever took the final plunge, unless they had a magic flame. lol. But if you think about it, the boilers would have more than likely warped. reason: boilers are very hot, the water was cold, this would have cooled the boilers off very rapidly, therefore warping the metal it was made of. So either way, explosion or warping, the boilers would have been useless. Wow! I actually said something that made since. clap for me.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Matthew, if you take a look at photos of the boilers taken in the debris field and also in that open section of Boiler Room Two you'll notice that the boilers aren't really warped. The front sections are pressed in a bit on some of them but not much. Some of the boilers in the debris field probably rained out from Boiler Room One when that section of the ship disintigrated. As these were probably not on line when the ship sank, they may not make a useful benchmark, however, the boilers in BR#2 were on line and were likely the very last to be snuffed out. (As in when they were swamped by flood waters.) They show no signs of being warped at all.

The reason for this is because the tubes themselves above the firebox would have been full of water. This is what combustion gasses flowed over to produce steam. The rest would have flooded naturally once the sea came in through the furnaces.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Matthew: You may want to see this reference site, TRMA Tech Feature - August 2005, for an excellent discussion of the boilers and the work of the firemen and trimmers on the Titanic.

 

[matthew ewing]

It was just an idea i had. being made of the metals that they were, I would have figured the ones that were on would have warped a little. so much for the clap for me statement.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>It was just an idea i had. being made of the metals that they were, <<

Ach...no need to beat yourself up. There is *some* damage evident with the boilers as I mentioned above, but just not all that much. The things were full of water and they were built pretty ruggedly. They had to be in order to keep the genie of live steam contained.

 

[Stanley Gordon Simpson]

REF A COMMENT ABOVE.
>>>>>>>> About the bulkheads. If you think about it, they probably imploded. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The bulkheads were open at the top, and the watertight doors had been left open to allow engineers to access the bilge pump manifolds.
An air space has to be watertight to either implode or explode. GORDON.