Tom Pappas
Guest
I'm sure Edward Wilding knew off the top of his head what stresses the boiler mounts were engineered for.
But all of his concerns would have been with a dry structure, i.e., loading under normal operating conditions.
But when Titanic trimmed down by the head and subsequently went to the bottom, the spaces containing the boilers were all flooded, bringing into play a somewhat different set of coefficients:
1. The metal of the boiler structure itself would have been buoyed up in an amount equal to the mass of the water it displaced (Archimedes).
2. There may have been residual steam in the boiler tubes, creating some buoyancy when they were immersed. Obviously, this advantage would be negated as the ambient pressure increased.
Of course, we can't know to what degree (pun) this would have affected the break-loose angle, because we don't have enough of the numbers. But it was not negligible, and would have had a measurable effect on advancing that angle beyond Wilding's postulation.
But all of his concerns would have been with a dry structure, i.e., loading under normal operating conditions.
But when Titanic trimmed down by the head and subsequently went to the bottom, the spaces containing the boilers were all flooded, bringing into play a somewhat different set of coefficients:
1. The metal of the boiler structure itself would have been buoyed up in an amount equal to the mass of the water it displaced (Archimedes).
2. There may have been residual steam in the boiler tubes, creating some buoyancy when they were immersed. Obviously, this advantage would be negated as the ambient pressure increased.
Of course, we can't know to what degree (pun) this would have affected the break-loose angle, because we don't have enough of the numbers. But it was not negligible, and would have had a measurable effect on advancing that angle beyond Wilding's postulation.