Doug Criner
Member
Google Bernoulli's principle
Olympic/Hawke Collision
- Thread starter Tarn Stephanos
- Start date
Doug Criner
Member
By the way, the same thing happened when Titanic, departing Southampton, sailed by SS New York at a reckless speed. The New York was sucked out into the channel, breaking its mooring lines, and nearly collided with Titanic.
When a large ship sails quickly over shoals that are a few feet deeper than the draft of the ship, the ship can settle and temporarily become grounded. As soon as the ship loses way, it bobs back up. Please don't ask me how I know
When a large ship sails quickly over shoals that are a few feet deeper than the draft of the ship, the ship can settle and temporarily become grounded. As soon as the ship loses way, it bobs back up. Please don't ask me how I know
Mr. Jordie Dean Byington
Member
Thanks Doug. Yeah I have heard of the Bernouli's principle and usually with most of the sites ad phiysics books that I have seen with it revolves around pipes and other non ship related things.So I just am not getting the understanding of it with ships like I would like. I am going to have to get some really good ship Handling books I guess and really look into it. I have heard of what you are talking about and they call it the squat effect but I just have a really basic understanding of it. I kind of got the basic idea of it but I am just looking how flowing water around a ship can do that. To me I think the concept is kind of interesting. Because I would think that a ship like the Titanic passing the New York would push the ship away with its wake instead of sucking it into its side. Thanks for your help again.
Doug Criner
Member
Naval ships often replenish or refuel at sea. It's instructive to ride aboard a large ship, say an aircraft carrier, being replenished by a supply ship. Both ships are on parallel courses, maybe a hundred or so yards apart, traveling at, say, 15 kt. In my ancient experience, the sea between the two ships is noticeably lower than the sea on the opposite side. This is a result of lower pressure caused by the flow between them.
You said that Bernoulli's principle makes sense to you for water flowing through a pipe. Imagine that those two ships are separated by a huge rectangular pipe, with the main cross-sectional dimension equal to the distance between the two ships. If we have monometers mounted on the outer skin of the pipe, you should be able to predict the lower pressure. Now, say "abracadabra," and the pipe magically disappears. Think about it.
Back to our two ships during replenishment at sea. The responsibility of the supply ship is to maintain a constant course and speed, nothing else. There may likely be two ships being replenished simultaneously, one on either side of the supply ship, so it would be suicide for the supply ship to try to maintain range to the other ship(s) - so, it's up to the giant aircraft carrier to maintain the separation distance between it and the much smaller supply ship. That's made a bit easier because to overcome the Bernoulli effect, both ships need to apply some constant rudder to steer away from each other, which sort of stabilizes things.
I consulted my copy of The American Practical Navigator, by Bowditch. (The book, which was initially published in 1802, is always just called "Bowditch.) It has explanations of "squat" and "bank suction." This is an excerpt from the squat write-up: "As a ship moves through shallow water, some of the water it displaces rushes under the vessel to rise again at the stern. This causes a venturi effect, decreasing the upward pressure on the hull."
An excerpt from the bank suction article: "....occurs at the stern of a ship in a narrow channel. Water rushing past the ship on the landward side exerts less force than on the opposite or open water side....The same effect occurs between two vessels passing close to each other."
You might be able to obtain a copy of Bowditch through your local library.
You said that Bernoulli's principle makes sense to you for water flowing through a pipe. Imagine that those two ships are separated by a huge rectangular pipe, with the main cross-sectional dimension equal to the distance between the two ships. If we have monometers mounted on the outer skin of the pipe, you should be able to predict the lower pressure. Now, say "abracadabra," and the pipe magically disappears. Think about it.
Back to our two ships during replenishment at sea. The responsibility of the supply ship is to maintain a constant course and speed, nothing else. There may likely be two ships being replenished simultaneously, one on either side of the supply ship, so it would be suicide for the supply ship to try to maintain range to the other ship(s) - so, it's up to the giant aircraft carrier to maintain the separation distance between it and the much smaller supply ship. That's made a bit easier because to overcome the Bernoulli effect, both ships need to apply some constant rudder to steer away from each other, which sort of stabilizes things.
I consulted my copy of The American Practical Navigator, by Bowditch. (The book, which was initially published in 1802, is always just called "Bowditch.) It has explanations of "squat" and "bank suction." This is an excerpt from the squat write-up: "As a ship moves through shallow water, some of the water it displaces rushes under the vessel to rise again at the stern. This causes a venturi effect, decreasing the upward pressure on the hull."
An excerpt from the bank suction article: "....occurs at the stern of a ship in a narrow channel. Water rushing past the ship on the landward side exerts less force than on the opposite or open water side....The same effect occurs between two vessels passing close to each other."
You might be able to obtain a copy of Bowditch through your local library.
Christophe Puttemans
Member
Transcript from the web video "Titanic: The Shocking Truth" about the damage the Olympic suffered from her collision with the Hawke:
"She sustained numerous other injuries including steel frames buckled, thousands of rivets popped, steel plating dislaunched over 4 decks and distortion to the starboard propeller and crank shaft. To make matters worse, the keel was bent."
I thought that a bent keel made the ship a total loss. But somehow Olympic still got repaired completely.
Was the damage to the Olympic really this serious? Or is this a claim made by conspiracy theorists to make a switch with Titanic more believable? And if wasn't a claim, how were the repairs done?
"She sustained numerous other injuries including steel frames buckled, thousands of rivets popped, steel plating dislaunched over 4 decks and distortion to the starboard propeller and crank shaft. To make matters worse, the keel was bent."
I thought that a bent keel made the ship a total loss. But somehow Olympic still got repaired completely.
Was the damage to the Olympic really this serious? Or is this a claim made by conspiracy theorists to make a switch with Titanic more believable? And if wasn't a claim, how were the repairs done?
Doug Criner
Member
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/pdfs/Conspiracy_Dissertation.pdf
It's not a terribly long read and there's a section that deals directly with the damage done to the Olympic. Even if there was...
SS Suevic - Wikipedia
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
The keel was never damaged. The Hawke did not go so deep into the Olympic. Aside from the reports in the article of Mark Chirnside mentioned in the above posted link (post #37) it was also photographed.
The "damaged keel" is a lie made up by Robin Gardiner and Co.
Even if it was damaged it could have been removed, cut off the stern and build a new one as they did with the Suevic bow. H&W had already done that with other ships and even have experience in extending a ship (by adding a new "middle" part).
Mark Baber
RIP
News from 1907: Suevic's Grounding
The New York Times, 18 March 1907 WHITE STAR LINER SUEVIC IS ASHORE --- On a Rock Near the Lizard---400 Passengers and a Crew of 160 on Board --- ACCIDENT IN THICK FOG --- Lifeboats Go to the Assistance of the Vessel---Loss of Life Not Anticipated --- LONDON, March 17---The White Star...
www.encyclopedia-titanica.org
Christophe Puttemans
Member
Thanks guys. It's still incredible to see in how many ways the switch theory can be disproved. I purposely called "Titanic: The Shocking Truth" a web-video, NOT a documentary.
It occurred to me that there's something else about the collision between the Olympic and the Hawke that wasn't addressed; the difference in draught. Hawke, at most, was 24 feet deep into the water but Olympic could get up to 34 feet and 7 inches. That's 10 feet and 7 inches of difference in height. How exactly would that damage the bottom of the ship?
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
No chance it would! From the photographs showing outside the damage it is clear many feet above the keel.
The made up claim by Gardiner&Co, is not only that the Hawke damaged the keel of the Olympic but also got deep into the ship damaging the turbine! And the only "proof" they had for them is that the centre prop was not used when sailing back and the made up claim of a port list. The accident was in September and she was back in service late November. Where are the reports/evidence that she had since November 1911 a port list? Instead we have a claim she had that list and then the quote of Titanic passengers Chambers & Beelsey which are taken out of context.
Scott Mills
Member
Similar threads
