Ice On Deck by Henning Pfeifer

[Daniel Klistorner]

All,

I wasn't really saying that the iceberg did scratch, I only suggested the possibility. I was more suggesting that when the berg tipped slightly during the collision, it may have only touched the ship very slightly, however enough for some ice to scrape off. On the other hand, perhaps not.

There were noises reported. I cannot remember whom these were from in particular, but descriptions like Titanic being opened like with a can opener, dragging a chain along the side or dropping a chain have been described by either passengers or crew. This noise may have been from the grounding, or else from scraping along the side.

As for the Cafe Parisien thing, the berg would not have been close to the ship. By the time the iceberg passed this area the stern had already swung away. This is explained in David Brown's book. He gives a good example of Mr. Harder's account. Being aft on E deck, in cabin 50, he saw the berg being about 50 - 100 feet away. Mrs. Clark in C89 saw a white object which I think she thought was a sail ship (i.e. with white sails). If the berg was close she would have simply described a white wall or mass (as Rehims did who saw it through the windows, fore on A deck), however she saw more of it and related what she thought it represented to her.

As for the water on the ports at the Cafe, this may well be condensation. Being warm inside and cold outside, some condensation may well have occurred.

Daniel.

 

[Ben Holme]

Dear Henning and all,

I should perhaps reiterate that I am not negating the rebound theory as a possibility. I am just attempting to illustrate that other factors, I believe, played a part in the deposition of ice on the ship and, to a certain extent, the noise as heard by a few.

As you mentioned earlier, Daniel, the point of impact with the ship depended on the shape of the berg. For example, we should exclude the possibility that the iceberg simply "stuck out" more on the B-deck level. Spencer Silverthorne, just outside the smoking room noticed "chunks" falling off the berg. I doubt this would have occurred without any prolonged impact with the side of the ship *above* the waterline. If the iceberg was seperated from the ship at this point (at least above the waterline), Silvethorne's observations wouldn't have made sense.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure we should take Omont's description of "water" on the ports too dogmatically. I don't want to get into pedantic territory here, but bear in mind that Omont was a Frenchmen. He may have meant "ice". In contrast, Chevre's desription of ice "rubbing against" the windows is pretty self explanatory. Although I'm of the belief that most noises heard by survivors came from the possible grounding as described by David, i.e. lower down (hence descriptions of chains running along the hull, broken propellors etc), it is entirely likely that a few (if not all) were referring to "rumbling/scraping" sounds outside their cabins, or thereabouts.

Henning, you wrote of Omont's acocut; My only conclusion: water from below, i.e rebound water.. are you suggesting that the "water" he observed was essentially "splash" from large falling chunks? If so, I believe the cafe was too high up for water to reach. Please correct me If I've misunderstood you here . Also, I was of the understanding that the ice rebounded only upon initial impact. in which case, this area would have been to far aft.

Regards,
Ben

 

[Henning Pfeifer]

Hi all
and thanks Daniel for this good locating analysis.

Ben: indeed I think the water splashed up pretty high. There was a big mass of a ship running with nearly full speed against another huge mass and there was only a small space between the hull and the iceberg. Indeed I think that some water reached a pretty good height - all chunks which were thrown upwards also were pretty wet of course...

I believe that there was not only one initial impact but also an impact leading for some seconds (no news). There was some under water rubbing for some seconds with consequental damages to the lower hull and to the iceberg as well. During all these seconds ice was breaking away and rebounding. And water as well with these pieces of ice.

I also see all the points mentioned here to weaken this rebound theory. All I tried is to stay close to the most authentic informations we have, to me these are the eyewitnesses accounts and to find a solution why none of them recalled on which way the ice came on board.

Ben, you have convinced me what belongs Omonts account. I won´t take this dogmatic, I now generally think that a single account shouldn´t count. But in my opinion among all witnesses there is a certain lack of accounts telling about an iceberg scraping the upper hull.


Best regards Henning

 

[Henning Pfeifer]

...by the way, Daniel, I think it is a pretty good idea to think about condensation generally. Probably there was some condensation inside the protholes. Specially in rooms where the air humidity was pretty high. I believe that on (in) a ship there is a basically pretty high air humidity inside. Do you think we could state that looking through the portholes generally was handicaped by condensation?

This could be an interesting aspect for directors of future films. I only recall clear portholes in the films...

Best regards Henning

 

[chrismireya]

I would like to bring up this topic (as it is the only thread that I can find on the subject at Encyclopedia Titanica) to address a couple of points/questions. First of all:

• The best images of the wreckage seem to indicate quite clearly that there is no major damage along the outer starboard upper deck (forecastle or well deck) -- and the railing in particular -- aside from buckling damage obviously caused by hitting the ocean floor. Nor was there any damage to the corner of the wall further astern in the well deck. Even brittle ice would likely have at least dented the rail.

This next one is a somewhat more complex discussion.

• We don't know the y-axis "drift angle" by which Titanic struck the iceberg.

What do I mean? When Murdoch was aware of the iceberg ahead, Titanic was turned hard to starboard. At a high rate of momentum, Titanic would have angled during the turn to starboard. When they were clearing the iceberg, Titanic was then turned hard to port. Again, this would have caused another albeit opposite tilt. The measure of that angle would have been dependent upon the surge and sway velocities and how "hard" the turns were.



We've seen modern ships demonstrate those tilts during various maneuvers that illustrate just how noticeable that list might be. Consider this video of the U.S.S. Nimitz:



While the top speed of the Nimitz is similar to Titanic's top velocity, the maneuver abilities (and weight) are different. Still, the concept that a drift angle (albeit extreme) during higher velocity and sudden turns is clear in the video. Thus, Titanic's starboard side could have been slightly lower while going "hard to starboard" and then raised when shifting "hard to port."

Of course, we don't know exactly when the actually collision (underwater) occurred. I've read different discussions about this. Did it happen during the turn to starboard or during the turn to port? I'm inclined to think that it happened during the turn to starboard. This could have potentially lowered the starboard side a bit.

If there was an ice overhang, this could potentially explain how it felt onto the well deck at the moment that Titanic struck.

Does anyone know if there is any testimony about how those reactionary turns affected Titanic?

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Chris.

The big problem about trying to re-create the movements of the ship during the time in question is that almost if not all researchers have failed to factor- in the effect on the bow dirction during impact + 6 seconds. As you know, experiments were made using the RMS Olympic to determing how long it would take for the bow to swing 22.5 degrees.. it was 37 seconds. However, that experiment was flawed, in that it was made with the ship making 21.5 knots and during the turn, her forward velocity was not impeded in any way.
I have pointed this out several times in the past but have not had any sensible response. In fct no response whatsoever..
Try this little experiment. You can do it with a doorway or by walking parallel aling a kitchen top.It is not rocket science and even a child can do it. I demonstrate in the following rough sketches.