Ice Bound Theory

[James Tennant]

>>How do you know that the stern didnt settle back cause we have enough testimony that indicates that a number of passengers thought the Titanic was going to float cause she went back level.<<

Again it goes to timing. If the stern is in the air when the keel breaks it means no more tension on the keel and the stern gets to smash into the bow, assuming an offset like ( bow__-- stern). Now only the hull plates and decks hold the stern up and the suspended weight plows the stern keel into the bow decks at some point above the bow keel.

Therein lies the rub. There doesn't appear to be a place higher on the bow wreck indicating the tremendous weight was shifted higher as it must have been when the stern settled. What could have kept the bow and stern separate and still allowed the stern to rise higher?

>>Why would the stern have to rise three times for the two keel sheers? Why couldnt both keel sheers happen on the break up and then the stern rose just once.<<

It took tremendous pressure to break the keel. It was the strongest member on the ship and the keel is often referred to as the backbone of a ship. The only way the stern could rise is by trying to lever the bow up. (The end of a pry bar is up before you push down - same thing)
Well, if you break the pry bar you can't lift anything with it. No leverage - no stern rise. And assuming the keel is just as strong along its length, something had to break it two more times so each break would need the stern prying on it.

>>Another part that I am trying to understand is how can the ice support the Titanic to keep the stern from settling back but yet the Titanic breaking shattered the ice.<<

When the first break happens the ice is up against the bow keel and is being used sort of like a doorstop. When the stern gets too high for the keel strength it breaks again and does a reverse shift (bow--___stern. Now the ice is pinned between the keel pressure of the bow and stern.

The bow then tries to lift the ice and the stern tries to push it under as neither is attached to anything but the ice. As the bow pushes the stern back up the pressure on the ice and keel in it is too great and the final break happens and the ice shatters because now you have bow___--ice--____stern sort of like big ice tongs pinching it.


>>we have testimony that the freshwater tanks were being watched for freezing. That and if that water would have froze you would have deformation in the hull as water expanded while it was freezing.<<

When I saw the video of the hull pieces being found they overlaid a hull diagram on the pieces and said they were deformed (bowed down). The ice theory was in response to that and as a way to insure the hull pieces were undamaged otherwise. Unfortunately I don't have the video to offer the overlay.

(I don't think the water circulation kept going after the boilers vented and it doesn't take long for water to freeze at the temperature of the water around the Titanic - it was actually close to being cold enough to freeze seawater as there was pack ice in the vicinity.)

 

[Matt Pereira]

>> It took tremendous pressure to break the keel. It was the strongest member on the ship and the keel is often referred to as the backbone of a ship. The only way the stern could rise is by trying to lever the bow up. (The end of a pry bar is up before you push down - same thing) <<

It wouldnt need the keel to be attached for the stern to raise up again. I mean cmon we have the engine room water tight door open to allow the pump hoses through to use the engine room pumps and then atop that the break would have happened around where the water tight bulkhead is and either way water would have been flowing into the engine room. Not only that but look at the diagram of the stern that shows whats left of the wreck the heaviest things on her is the turbine and recprocating engines all in the two forward most compartments after the break. She would have nosed down regardless if water was enterting this compartment or not. She would do basically what the bow did water filling the front two most compartments and that will pull down theres no water in the aft end of the stern so as weight is added to the forward end of the stern it quickly counters the weight of the aft end of the stern and quickly exceeds the weight of the stern thus lifting the stern up again. So you can see you dont need a piece of ice or the keel connected for the stern to raise up again. For all we know after the break the hull could have seperated from the water tight bulkhead and water was able to pour into both the turbine and the recprocating engine rooms and once she got pulled down to scotland road water would flow past the water tight bulkheads and flow down into each compartment but with the weight of the engines you will have a pulling effect on it.

 

[James Tennant]

>>It wouldnt need the keel to be attached for the stern to raise up again<<

You mean to upend and sink. No not at all. In the last 30 seconds this is precisely what it did. All three breaks were done and the stern went down like a rock. Just as you describe. Including the slight list to port.

>>heaviest things on her is the turbine and recprocating engines all in the two forward most compartments after the break.<<

The props and rudder added a little weight further back. But the stern (especially filling with water) was basically an anchor.

However, it took a 10 degree rise of the stern to cause one break. The next two breaks happened before those final 30 seconds.

The stern tried to sink as you describe right after the second break - which coincided with the expansion joint failure. The only thing that paused the action of upending and sinking was the separation of the bow which still had unflooded areas (boiler room section). The stern slammed into this section and it pushed back. This was the stern coming back up. That only lasted for a minute as the stern re-started its dive and then sank as you described it.

The period of time between the first shear and the last shear was probably less than two minutes. So we know what happened up to the 10 degree break and you've described the last 30 seconds. The ice theory merely describes the time between these two points.

Say the first break and the expansion joint failure happened at once. If the stern flooded right after the first break, it would have broken off and sunk rudder first. No longer attached at the keel or the expansion joint it should have gone straight down. There would have been no 'settling back'. What would have caused it to do that if it was filling with water and not attached except by a couple sheet metal decks? It couldn't float at all so even completely separated from the bow it wouldn't come back up or settle down and look like it was going to float.

The ice theory is describing the second break as happening while the stern was rising to the 60 degrees Lightoller described and the last break happening underwater as the stern and bow parted company for the last time. All this happened really quick. So it is the timing of the breaks that is important.

 

[James Tennant]

>>The next two breaks happened before those final 30 seconds.<<
Sorry, meant to say second break.