Reports of Flooding in Aft Section

I think in this case, the witnesses' perspective can be subject to an optical illusion. The Titanic was a massive ship and for someone sitting in a lifeboat, the stern would appear to have risen to a 'considerable height' even when the ship was 10 degrees trimmed down. I found Sam Halpern's article "Why a Low Angle Break?" very informative and educational; especially the illustrative sketches and the 'Bending Moment vs Angle' graph.


In the graph, you can see that the stress forces on the keel were at their peak around 12 to 13 degrees trim. Had the Titanic not broken apart at that time, those forces would have dropped steadily and reached zero if the stern had become vertical.

I agree.
 
Last edited:
I see a dangerous pattern here. I've been showing the survivors testimonies over and over, exactly what they said, and slowly experts are discovering the truth without credit to my work. It's a matter of time with the forensics of the break up too.

So far I have not seen one single sinking animation which "stole" any of your theories.
 
It says sketches by Jack Thayer right there in the article. Here's proof.

How many times do we have to go over it? You have posted it time and again here on ET.



Thomas Dillon observed the ship looking intact as the fourth funnel cantered aft. This is what he was seeing.

View attachment 49275

This is what it would have looked from Dillons vantage point before he rode the stern into the water.

You have a account from Dillon where he mentioned how the bow towered over the funnels? Where does he say that?
 
The idea that the boilers broke loose is a bit far - fetched. The boilers on Titanic would have been secured as all such boilers were, to at least 2 saddle-shaped supports at each end which were, in turn, secured to the tank top. The securing arrangement would have been at last three each side ,steel bolts, tightened and locked. and the saddles would have been riveted to the tank top.
Thereafter, the boiler was lowered into place and onto a pre-prepared bed of wet cement. When the cement was set, the whole structure was rigid. Then all the boiler attachments would be fitted, creating a unit which could not move, even in the severest of weather conditions and angles of pitch and heel.
Thus, the boilers were secured against any violent heaving and pitching of the vessel.

I have a dumb question, going back several posts in this thread. When Bob Ballard and his team first found the wreck in 1985, one of the first things they saw of the ship was a boiler lying there on the ocean floor. I don't remember how far from either the bow or stern section that boiler was spotted. My dumb question is, when along during the sinking and the bow's and stern's trips to the bottom would that boiler have left the ship?
 
He probably meant one of his theories that some of the lights remained on after the ship broke in two. Some animations, like a recent simulation by Titanic H&G, incorporated this detail into their simulations.
Intresting trivia not many people know, their 2016 sinking animation was made in only ten days and they said time and time again that their final sinking animation will be in the final product. Since it was made in only ten days a few mistakes could be found in the animation.
 
He probably meant one of his theories that some of the lights remained on after the ship broke in two.

From what I know this "theory" goes years back. I can not remember when exactly but it must have been early or mid 1990s when it was theorised.
A friend of mine suggested rightly that some lights still on were the red night lights placed on different part of the ship.
You will see that there are several theories which had been mentioned in the past by different people which are coming up again.

Some animations, like a recent simulation by Titanic H&G, incorporated this detail into their simulations.

Haven't seen it. One version I have seen partly had a lot of mistakes in it. Its the one Dr. Paul Lee wrote about it.
 
Actually, Encyclopedia Titanica says otherwise. Here's what an excerpt of his bio says:
In another place, as I remember it, Thayer also misspelled "coming" as "comming." So "blow" was probably a typo.

Really, I talked to the Thayer family and they said it was "blow or buckle upwards," and Paul Lee's website it is also blow or buckle upwards."

Untitled.jpg


I would like to also point out that when Thayer wrote this account he was not in a good part of his life. He was suffering from severe depression.
 
From what I know this "theory" goes years back. I can not remember when exactly but it must have been early or mid 1990s when it was theorised.
A friend of mine suggested rightly that some lights still on were the red night lights placed on different part of the ship.
You will see that there are several theories which had been mentioned in the past by different people which are coming up again.



Haven't seen it. One version I have seen partly had a lot of mistakes in it. Its the one Dr. Paul Lee wrote about it.



This is what’s being referenced. The team has expressed that they still aren’t quite satisfied with this one (mainly stern movements after the break).
 
Hey, Aaron! The "bow resurfacing" was most likely the bow correcting her port list and listing slightly to starboard after she twisted, buckled, and broke from the stern, or at least that's what I believe. There is no way the bow would've dramatically resurfaced at such a high angle later in the sinking. Even if the bow still had plenty of air inside, she would not have dramatically resurfaced from the water that way. It would've been much subtler. I think the second picture above more accurately demonstrates the break-up process than the later photos. Here's my version for reference:

View attachment 49280

View attachment 49281


This is based on my previous findings, I've since revisioned the break-up visual based on new evidence and calculations. Class in session.

How high did the bow rise? Is it possible for the bow to rise sky high at a 45 degree angle, mirroring the stern when it rose?


We know the Titanic displaced 52,310 tons intact. We can make an educated estimate of reduced displacement based upon dispersal of flooding, which we know was localized along the E-deck crew passage, partially of boiler room 6, the mail hold, various spaces on F-deck including the third class dining saloon, the Turkish bath complex, and Squash court. And the after parts - the engine room, and 2nd class cabins near the forward stairwell. There was very little flooding above D-deck at this point in the sinking. We can infer at least anywhere between 30-35% of the ship was flooded at the time of break.

An object that sinks displaces an amount of fluid equal to the object's volume. Thus buoyancy is expressed through Archimedes' principle, which states that the weight of the object is reduced by its volume multiplied by the density of the fluid.

As we know, water doesn't make the object heavier, it merely reduces buoyancy.

TITANIC-PROFILE.jpg


Without factoring the loss of displacement just yet, we can independently infer that the broken sections by estimate would displace the following tons.

Bow = 26,155 tons
Middle = 8,719 tons
Stern = 17,436 tons

At surface glance, the bow makes of significantly more of the ship than the middle, but we must not forget the the area of concentration of water being not in the forward compartments, due to the resistance of cargo and mail occupying these spaces. Therefore, when the ship broke apart, water circumvents throughout the lower decks aft at Boiler Room 1 with two dynamic forces - the rapid intake of water entering the amidship from the break causing the bow to rise, followed by the outflow of current floodwater spilling through the compartments which were indicated to have been opened to bodily stem water flow.


flow.png


At this point, the after end of the bow piece behaves as the fulcrum. Here's an experiment. Take an ordinary garden hoe and place your foot on it with force. The pole immediately shoots vertical.

hoe-experiment .png


Now, how do we determine the travelling force of the middle section pressing down upon the bow? Remember, the engines were observed to have fallen out from their beds.

Percy Keen: "It appeared to us that when the ship listed heavily to port the engines fell out and crashed through the side. The second funnel broke off, and killed a number of people in its fall."

John B. Thayer: "The Titanic seemed to hang and with the roar of boilers and engines breaking loose in the hold slipping to the forward part of the ship"

Thomas Whiteley: "When I got the rope on my leg off I came to the top, made for some wreckage which I hung on to, just in time to see the Titanic blow her sides away."


hoe2.png


Titanic's engines fell 19 metres unto the after end of the bow. The combined total of weight would entail both the forward engine cylinders and the bulk of the middle section, rapidly descending on the rapidly flooding end of the bow. Unfortunately, we have to estimate the speed of which it fell, assuming it was a free-fall force with some air and water resistance. We can make a fair assumption through simple mathematics:

E = (0.5x 9,439 x 90^2) + (9,439 x 9.8 x 63)

results in the middle section applying a kinetic force of energy about:
44,055,588.6 J onto the partially filled bow.

Sidney Daniels: "Two of her funnels (in this case, the 2nd and 3rd funnels from the coal explosion) fell off and after an explosion, which I distinctly heard being only a short distance away at that time, she smashed in the middle."

breakup.png



Carrie Chaffee: "it [The Titanic] seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts in which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up. Finally the bow went under, and it plunged, stern last."


End of class. The bow rose, and higher than previously assumed. The survivors and physics are correct.
 
Last edited:
1594574768029.jpg

A very important detail is omitted from the pictures, the forepeak tank was also damaged during the collision and air escaped out to it. To quote the Testimony of Samuel Hemming (see TIP | United States Senate Inquiry | Day 7 | Testimony of Samuel Hemming (Lamp Trimmer, SS Titanic)) :

Senator SMITH.

Go right along and tell what you did.



Mr. HEMMING.

I did not see anything. I opened the forepeak storeroom; me and the storekeeper went down as far as the top of the tank and found everything dry.



I came up to ascertain where the hissing noise was still coming from. I found it was the air escaping out of the exhaust of the tank.



At that time the chief officer, Mr. Wilde, put his head around the hawse pipe and says: "What is that, Hemming?" I said: "The air is escaping from the forepeak tank. She is making water in the forepeak tank, but the storeroom is quite dry." He said, "All right," and went away.
 
Noted. My diagram was primarily to demonstrate the outflow of floodwater vs. the intake concentrated at the break area with the after end of the bow breached to the sea.
 
Back
Top