David G. Brown
RIP
Back to propeller vibration on Titanic. Allow me a gambol into the field of speculation--
I can find several examples within the various testimonies that some vibrations from the stern of the ship were experienced that night. Not all of these examples occurred during the accident.
The most obvious example comes from the first class galley area where several people equated the iceberg accident with the loss of a propeller blade. That interpretation probably grew out of Olympic's real-life experience of dropping a blade underway. However, even cooks and stewards should have been able to tell the difference between rumbling of steel on ice from the bow and vibrations from the stern. I cannot accept that they thought "up front" was "back there." They must have experienced vibration from the stern.
Curiously, those men were in the same general area of the ship where two passengers reported vibrations earlier in the night. Check the testimonies of Mahala Douglas and Charles Stengle.
Captain Erik and I have discussed the vibrations which arise from the operation of the ship's rudder. These vibrations seem most noticeable aboard piston-powered steamships, particularly single screw vessels. I know of one ship that vibrated when the rudder was to one side or straight, but did not vibrate when the rudder was put over the other way. The causes of these vibrations are not the subject of my discussion, the important thing is only that they occur.
It's a wild supposition with scant proof, but I believe it is possible that Titanic experienced these vibrations under larger rudder angles. That is, they occurred only when the outboard tip of the rudder came into the discharge stream of either piston-powered wing propeller. If so, the men in the galley experienced vibrations caused by Murdoch's final "hard a-port" order to clear the stern from the iceberg.
But, what about those passengers who felt vibrations shortly after 10 p.m. that night? If these were from the use of rudder, why so much rudder angle at that hour of the night in the middle of the Atlantic?
Why is the wreck site east and south of either set of CQD coordinates?
Well, if Titanic diverted course southward at approximately 10:15 p.m. there would have been rudder vibrations. But, why would Titanic have diverted course at that time?
Well, recall that Captain Smith returned to the bridge after 9:30 p.m. per Daisey Minahan. That means the vibrations experienced by Douglas and Stengle occurred within 25 to 30 minutes after Smith returned to his bridge.
Also, recall Boxhall's testimony that Captain Smith was on the bridge the whole time until the accident. And, that the captain had asked Boxhall's help in plotting something (Boxhall did not say what) on a chart. These are the actions of a shipmaster who is either planning a course change or has just ordered a diversion and wishes to assess its impact on the rest of the voyage.
The underlying factor in all of this is ice. Not THE iceberg, just ice. We can argue about which ice messages got to the bridge and which did not--but there is no argument that Smith knew there was ice in his path that night.
It may just be that vibrations caused by the angle of the rudder are proof that one more belief about Titanic's accident is a myth. Rather than steaming blindly into danger, we now have tentative proof in the form of vibrations that Captain Smith diverted course for the safety of his ship. This possibility is supported by the juxtaposition of the wreckage vis-a-vis the CQD coordinates. It is also supported by the actions of Lusitania which diverted around the same field of ice on its crossing.
Suddenly, our picture of Captain Smith changes. He wasn't a devil-may-care mariner who went to sleep as his ship pounded into danger. Instead, we have a prudent navigator who recognized danger and took action to mitigate it. Even more important, he took his first action for the safety of Titanic well before the accident.
--David G. Brown
I can find several examples within the various testimonies that some vibrations from the stern of the ship were experienced that night. Not all of these examples occurred during the accident.
The most obvious example comes from the first class galley area where several people equated the iceberg accident with the loss of a propeller blade. That interpretation probably grew out of Olympic's real-life experience of dropping a blade underway. However, even cooks and stewards should have been able to tell the difference between rumbling of steel on ice from the bow and vibrations from the stern. I cannot accept that they thought "up front" was "back there." They must have experienced vibration from the stern.
Curiously, those men were in the same general area of the ship where two passengers reported vibrations earlier in the night. Check the testimonies of Mahala Douglas and Charles Stengle.
Captain Erik and I have discussed the vibrations which arise from the operation of the ship's rudder. These vibrations seem most noticeable aboard piston-powered steamships, particularly single screw vessels. I know of one ship that vibrated when the rudder was to one side or straight, but did not vibrate when the rudder was put over the other way. The causes of these vibrations are not the subject of my discussion, the important thing is only that they occur.
It's a wild supposition with scant proof, but I believe it is possible that Titanic experienced these vibrations under larger rudder angles. That is, they occurred only when the outboard tip of the rudder came into the discharge stream of either piston-powered wing propeller. If so, the men in the galley experienced vibrations caused by Murdoch's final "hard a-port" order to clear the stern from the iceberg.
But, what about those passengers who felt vibrations shortly after 10 p.m. that night? If these were from the use of rudder, why so much rudder angle at that hour of the night in the middle of the Atlantic?
Why is the wreck site east and south of either set of CQD coordinates?
Well, if Titanic diverted course southward at approximately 10:15 p.m. there would have been rudder vibrations. But, why would Titanic have diverted course at that time?
Well, recall that Captain Smith returned to the bridge after 9:30 p.m. per Daisey Minahan. That means the vibrations experienced by Douglas and Stengle occurred within 25 to 30 minutes after Smith returned to his bridge.
Also, recall Boxhall's testimony that Captain Smith was on the bridge the whole time until the accident. And, that the captain had asked Boxhall's help in plotting something (Boxhall did not say what) on a chart. These are the actions of a shipmaster who is either planning a course change or has just ordered a diversion and wishes to assess its impact on the rest of the voyage.
The underlying factor in all of this is ice. Not THE iceberg, just ice. We can argue about which ice messages got to the bridge and which did not--but there is no argument that Smith knew there was ice in his path that night.
It may just be that vibrations caused by the angle of the rudder are proof that one more belief about Titanic's accident is a myth. Rather than steaming blindly into danger, we now have tentative proof in the form of vibrations that Captain Smith diverted course for the safety of his ship. This possibility is supported by the juxtaposition of the wreckage vis-a-vis the CQD coordinates. It is also supported by the actions of Lusitania which diverted around the same field of ice on its crossing.
Suddenly, our picture of Captain Smith changes. He wasn't a devil-may-care mariner who went to sleep as his ship pounded into danger. Instead, we have a prudent navigator who recognized danger and took action to mitigate it. Even more important, he took his first action for the safety of Titanic well before the accident.
--David G. Brown
