Paul Rogers
Member
"Sir Edward Elgar. Opus 36."
I'd imagine Dave is referring to magnetic variation, Paul. (From Elgar's Enigma Variations.)
I'd imagine Dave is referring to magnetic variation, Paul. (From Elgar's Enigma Variations.)
I do not see how two ships can alter their bearings when stopped Lord Mersey
- Thread starter Paul Lee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- lord mersey
Noel F. Jones
Member
"As I indicated, the current is backed up by the weight of the entire ocean."
I cannot see that oceanic set will of itself swing a stationary vessel relative to a compass bearing. Her location will only be translated 'over the ground' without any change in her aspect. This is analogous to an object on a conveyor belt.
A vessel with the way off will answer to wave action, falling approximately broadside-on thereto. She will also answer to any disproportionate wind pressure on her deck erections, her final aspect being the result of some balance between those two external forces.
Feel free to educate me otherwise....
Noel
I cannot see that oceanic set will of itself swing a stationary vessel relative to a compass bearing. Her location will only be translated 'over the ground' without any change in her aspect. This is analogous to an object on a conveyor belt.
A vessel with the way off will answer to wave action, falling approximately broadside-on thereto. She will also answer to any disproportionate wind pressure on her deck erections, her final aspect being the result of some balance between those two external forces.
Feel free to educate me otherwise....
Noel
Thanks for the kind comment John. The only problem with respect to the sketch is that, for the geometry to be "right", the Californian's positions would have to be well to the east of where she stopped for the night - and I can't see how that could happen. Not even a strong drift could explain it, as the Californian was able to travel to the wrecksite in under two hours the next day.
Cheers
Paul
Cheers
Paul
Dave Gittins
Member
Noel's explanation is a very good one. Captain Lord himself made it clear that his ship was turning due to the action of the wind.
Paul, why do you believe Lord's evidence on his overnight position? (By the way, Lord took 2½ hours to get to the boats and Carpathia. 6-00 to 8-30. That's not the same as getting to the wreck site. Nobody reached that.)
Paul, why do you believe Lord's evidence on his overnight position? (By the way, Lord took 2½ hours to get to the boats and Carpathia. 6-00 to 8-30. That's not the same as getting to the wreck site. Nobody reached that.)
Hi Dave,
(What was the meaning of the Elgar note btw?)
The reason why I believe that Lord was right, more or less in his overnight position was because I cannot find any evidence, except for drift, that he was wrong. Alright, I have to assume that the 7.30pm starsight was right, giving a lattitude fo 42 5.5 N, but this is also consistent with his course during the remainder of the day. For his ship to get so far south (to be within visual range of the Titanic) or so far east (to coincide with my diagram) means that either (a) the drift was quite strong, and/or (b) the watchkeepers etc. on board the ship failed to notice that the ship was deviating drastically from its planned route.
Still, it doesn't explain the change in the Californian's ship bearings from SSE to SW. I just don't understand that.
Cheers
Paul
(What was the meaning of the Elgar note btw?)
The reason why I believe that Lord was right, more or less in his overnight position was because I cannot find any evidence, except for drift, that he was wrong. Alright, I have to assume that the 7.30pm starsight was right, giving a lattitude fo 42 5.5 N, but this is also consistent with his course during the remainder of the day. For his ship to get so far south (to be within visual range of the Titanic) or so far east (to coincide with my diagram) means that either (a) the drift was quite strong, and/or (b) the watchkeepers etc. on board the ship failed to notice that the ship was deviating drastically from its planned route.
Still, it doesn't explain the change in the Californian's ship bearings from SSE to SW. I just don't understand that.
Cheers
Paul
Dave Gittins
Member
"Alright, I have to assume that the 7.30pm starsight was right, giving a latitude fo 42 5.5 N, but this is also consistent with his course during the remainder of the day."
The trouble is, it isn't. Lord was steering 269° True from his noon position, which I can demonstrate is an honest, though perhaps slightly inaccurate one. He should have been going further south, yet he says he was set north to 50° 05'N. By all other evidence, his longitude of 50° 07'W is way into the icefield.
In his 1959 affidavit, Lord invoked a current setting WNW at one knot. Nothing could be more unlikely in that area.
Re the changing bearing, I'll give you another enigmatic utterance. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
The trouble is, it isn't. Lord was steering 269° True from his noon position, which I can demonstrate is an honest, though perhaps slightly inaccurate one. He should have been going further south, yet he says he was set north to 50° 05'N. By all other evidence, his longitude of 50° 07'W is way into the icefield.
In his 1959 affidavit, Lord invoked a current setting WNW at one knot. Nothing could be more unlikely in that area.
Re the changing bearing, I'll give you another enigmatic utterance. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
Alright, he says that he allowed for S89W when calculating the overnight position, but then, he says that he was on a course of due West true from noon.
How can we reconcile the 42 05.5 N starsight with the other evidence? It is possible that as soon as this was taken, the southerly set took over, which over 2 hours and 50 minutes would give a latitude of 2 5/6 miles south. But then this still leaves the problem of Carpathia's rockets and the "mystery ship" been seen in the SW early in the morning. For this to happen, the Californian must have been well east of her DR position. When I did a few trial calculations, I was surprised as to how far east she must have been (One answer gave an answer of 49 degrees 31 minutes west, which is so wrong as to be ludicrously absurd).
No offence, but the enigmatic references are just a tad annoying. I've yet to hear anyone on this board say how two ships can alter their bearings when stopped. Its all very well for people to make bald statements that "Californian's overnight position was wrong", but when it comes to explaining how this happened, none of the explanations - if any are offered that is - make sense.
Cheers
Paul
How can we reconcile the 42 05.5 N starsight with the other evidence? It is possible that as soon as this was taken, the southerly set took over, which over 2 hours and 50 minutes would give a latitude of 2 5/6 miles south. But then this still leaves the problem of Carpathia's rockets and the "mystery ship" been seen in the SW early in the morning. For this to happen, the Californian must have been well east of her DR position. When I did a few trial calculations, I was surprised as to how far east she must have been (One answer gave an answer of 49 degrees 31 minutes west, which is so wrong as to be ludicrously absurd).
No offence, but the enigmatic references are just a tad annoying. I've yet to hear anyone on this board say how two ships can alter their bearings when stopped. Its all very well for people to make bald statements that "Californian's overnight position was wrong", but when it comes to explaining how this happened, none of the explanations - if any are offered that is - make sense.
Cheers
Paul
John Knight
Member
Go for it Paul!!. I am not expert enough to be of much help to you here but I can see exactly what you are saying, and you are right nobody has yet explained the discrepancies.
Dave Gittins
Member
Hint: There was no mystery about the ship seen to the SW. She was Mount Temple. Stewart saw her yellow funnel. Carpathia's rockets were seen to the SSE, right where they would be expected.
My enigmatic utterances are intended to get you thinking while keeping certain of my work to myself. Sorry, but I'm like that.
My enigmatic utterances are intended to get you thinking while keeping certain of my work to myself. Sorry, but I'm like that.
The ship seen to the SW was the one that Stone and Gibson were keeping under watch from 12.08 onwards! The ship seen at 4.00am that morning might have been the Mount Temple, yes, but we are talking about the bearings of the previous ship changing.
Stone and Gibson's accounts do not corroborate the Carpathia's rockets being seen to the SSE.
Stone: "We saw nothing further until about 3:20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart.
Gibson "At about 3:20 looking over the weather cloth, I observed a rocket about two points before the beam (Port), which I reported to the Second Officer. About three minutes later I saw another rocket right abeam which was followed later by another one about two points before the beam."
At the time, Californian was heading roughly West or WNW, which would put the rockets to the SW. Stone puts the rockets to the SW, and Gibson says that they were either abeam, or two points before the port beam, meaning, roughly S to SW.
Cheers
Paul
Stone and Gibson's accounts do not corroborate the Carpathia's rockets being seen to the SSE.
Stone: "We saw nothing further until about 3:20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart.
Gibson "At about 3:20 looking over the weather cloth, I observed a rocket about two points before the beam (Port), which I reported to the Second Officer. About three minutes later I saw another rocket right abeam which was followed later by another one about two points before the beam."
At the time, Californian was heading roughly West or WNW, which would put the rockets to the SW. Stone puts the rockets to the SW, and Gibson says that they were either abeam, or two points before the port beam, meaning, roughly S to SW.
Cheers
Paul
Heres another sketch showing how the positions of Mount Temple (if indeed, she was the ship seen by the Californian at 4am) and Capt Lord's lot can be reconciled. The only niggle is that, for a north-south lay of the icefield, this puts the Californian to the west of the field.
Cheers
Paul
Cheers
Paul
On this point - which has elicited no response at all - what if the lay of the icefield was NW-SE? This would mean that the Californian could have been stopped, with a heavy ice field seen to the South (as seen by Gibson and Stone), without having to invoke Foweracker's T-shaped icefield in his sketch.
Paul
Paul
Samuel Halpern
Member
Paul: I assume you received my private email. The lay of ice field was NNW by SSE true. This comes from the Mount Temple as they tried to get around it by heading SSE true that morning and failed.
Similar threads
