Superior mirage and the Californian
- Thread starter DarrenC
- Start date
Samuel Halpern
Member
Assumptions without full knowledge of the processes involved can be dangerous Mila.
Sam, if under "Assumptions" you meant my statement about weathering of buried parts, it is not exactly an assumption.
We have Eighteen hundreds shipwreck at my local beach. It is covered by sand and appears ever 20 years or so during very low tides and right winds http://www.sfcityguides.org/images/guidelines/Shipwreck-7.11.jpg
The wood is perfectly preserved. I am very sure that if it had been in the open all that time, by now there would not have been anything left of it.
However, could you explain such drastic difference in the appearance of the upper and lower parts of the propeller?
We have Eighteen hundreds shipwreck at my local beach. It is covered by sand and appears ever 20 years or so during very low tides and right winds http://www.sfcityguides.org/images/guidelines/Shipwreck-7.11.jpg
The wood is perfectly preserved. I am very sure that if it had been in the open all that time, by now there would not have been anything left of it.
However, could you explain such drastic difference in the appearance of the upper and lower parts of the propeller?
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
What drastic difference? The rusticle hang down and are in the lower part more as they are there in a "better" angle.(Not sure if I fully understand your question.)
Actually it is resting on the sea floor, it was not buried. The starboard shaft and propeller is bend up from it's original position and is now at the high of F-Deck.
Actually it is resting on the sea floor, it was not buried. The starboard shaft and propeller is bend up from it's original position and is now at the high of F-Deck.
Here's a high resolution of the image http://i.imgur.com/2co3Bo2.jpg
There are no any details visible on the lower part.
Ditches or whatever they are called are clearly visible on the upper half in the middle, but not on the lower. Even the texture looks different.
BTW, forgive me my ignorance, but could somebody please tell me who exactly took this picture, and what was his own assessment of the propeller?
Sometimes a human eye could see something that camera cannot.
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
They are "hide" under the rusticles.
Here is one picture showing it from the side.
The photographer is Emroy Kristof he took a lot of photos from the wreck. I do not know if he said anything about the propeller but others did. Aside that the fairwater is missing (it came off on the way to the bottom) there is only mention about the "damage" done when it hit the bottom bending the wing propeller & shaft up and to the side.
Aaron_2016
Guest
We really should return back to topic.
In response to Mila's question. Here are several different views of the white markings on the half buried blade which at first glance looks like it made contact with the ice, but I believe there is another explanation.
Two views of the starboard prop. Demonstrates how close the bolts were to the two visible blades.
Camera backing away from the propeller
Sonar photo shows how the stern smeared clockwise against the sea floor.
There is no visible scarring of the alleged third blade underneath, so I believe the blade that has the white smear had just dug into the sand when the stern was finally touching down fully which caused the blade to slightly dig down and and turn slightly above the sand as the stern, which resulted in half of it being smeared by the mud which affected its appearance as it dug in and rotated upwards by the stern landing.
The stern smeared clockwise with such force that the propeller shafts were bent upwards and the stern fractured and twisted.
Bending of the stern wreck. Credited to wormstedt
.
In response to Mila's question. Here are several different views of the white markings on the half buried blade which at first glance looks like it made contact with the ice, but I believe there is another explanation.
Two views of the starboard prop. Demonstrates how close the bolts were to the two visible blades.
Camera backing away from the propeller
Sonar photo shows how the stern smeared clockwise against the sea floor.
There is no visible scarring of the alleged third blade underneath, so I believe the blade that has the white smear had just dug into the sand when the stern was finally touching down fully which caused the blade to slightly dig down and and turn slightly above the sand as the stern, which resulted in half of it being smeared by the mud which affected its appearance as it dug in and rotated upwards by the stern landing.
The stern smeared clockwise with such force that the propeller shafts were bent upwards and the stern fractured and twisted.
Bending of the stern wreck. Credited to wormstedt
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Julian Atkins
Member
Hi Aaron,
I was very interested in your first pic above.
I can see why you have drawn the conclusions you have, but I might suggest that the right hand blade is not in the position it ought to be, which has allowed you to arrive at the conclusions you have made.
Might I suggest that the right hand blade has become partially detached from the 'boss' to which it was bolted to. I was going to suggest at first it was 'bent', but cast manganese bronze is quite brittle, as is all cast bronze and will snap or break rather than be bent.
Perhaps that blade's bolts sheared off in impact with the sea bed resulting in the blade being at not 120 degrees to the upright middle blade. This results in a misunderstanding as to the orientation of the blade that cannot be seen. Perhaps the blade on the right has partially sheared off on impact with the sea bed resulting in it's unusual configuration compared to the upright blade.
The hidden blade (Ioannis) or your fallen blade ought to be referenced to the geometry of the upright blade seen, rather than the right hand blade which I would suggest is not in it's original bolted on position, for whatever reason.
(I have some experience of casting manganese bronze and then machining it).
Cheers,
Julian
I was very interested in your first pic above.
I can see why you have drawn the conclusions you have, but I might suggest that the right hand blade is not in the position it ought to be, which has allowed you to arrive at the conclusions you have made.
Might I suggest that the right hand blade has become partially detached from the 'boss' to which it was bolted to. I was going to suggest at first it was 'bent', but cast manganese bronze is quite brittle, as is all cast bronze and will snap or break rather than be bent.
Perhaps that blade's bolts sheared off in impact with the sea bed resulting in the blade being at not 120 degrees to the upright middle blade. This results in a misunderstanding as to the orientation of the blade that cannot be seen. Perhaps the blade on the right has partially sheared off on impact with the sea bed resulting in it's unusual configuration compared to the upright blade.
The hidden blade (Ioannis) or your fallen blade ought to be referenced to the geometry of the upright blade seen, rather than the right hand blade which I would suggest is not in it's original bolted on position, for whatever reason.
(I have some experience of casting manganese bronze and then machining it).
Cheers,
Julian
Aaron_2016
Guest
Thank you, although the partially visible blade does appear to be fully mounted and bolted securely to the propeller.
.
Mark Baber
RIP
Indeed.
Julian Atkins
Member
Hi Aaron,
I don't have the benefit of your research of the photographic evidence, but I might just add that my post above conclusions might equally apply to the unseen blade. Though If the stern hit 'mud' I am probably quite wrong, though I have absolutely no idea what force the stern section hit the sea bed (I imagine it was quite catastrophic so anything might have happened).
All I can say is that if you wallop a manganese bronze casting with a big enough hammer it will break!
Cheers,
Julian
I don't have the benefit of your research of the photographic evidence, but I might just add that my post above conclusions might equally apply to the unseen blade. Though If the stern hit 'mud' I am probably quite wrong, though I have absolutely no idea what force the stern section hit the sea bed (I imagine it was quite catastrophic so anything might have happened).
All I can say is that if you wallop a manganese bronze casting with a big enough hammer it will break!
Cheers,
Julian
Julian Atkins
Member
My hunch is that the right hand starboard prob blade has sheared/broken off from the bolting on facing of the casting. This disorientates it's position being less than 120 degrees in your pics and those of others posted on here, leading to the wrong conclusions of the hidden blade.
I would also suspect that the hidden blade has snapped off and is lying vertically in the 'mud'.
Ioannis has quite clearly stated that 'your' blade found near the wreck could have been a rock, and you have not come up with anything to challenge Ioannis over this.
Cheers,
Julian
I would also suspect that the hidden blade has snapped off and is lying vertically in the 'mud'.
Ioannis has quite clearly stated that 'your' blade found near the wreck could have been a rock, and you have not come up with anything to challenge Ioannis over this.
Cheers,
Julian
Aaron_2016
Guest
The video I posted in post #831 shows a close-up video of the blade and it looks very much like a blade and not a rock, with a very distinct metallic curvature. It was featured in a TV documentary and the team leader who found it was so confident that it was a blade from the Titanic that he believed he had found the wreck itself and had just skimmed over the edge of it. It was also compared to one similar in size to a large passenger liner. It also was found in the same direction as the current which pushed the wreck, and debris, bodies, and boats towards the east in a distinct pattern.
e.g.
.
I think we really should return back to topic. I would let this discussion take a break until further examination of the stern and seafloor can be conducted which will hopefully put all matters at rest.
.
Mark Baber
RIP
Moderator's hat on:
Do not discuss the "missing blade" issue in this thread any longer. Any further messages on that subject in this thread will be removed.
Moderators hat off.
Julian Atkins
Member
I have reviewed a few early threads on here re Boxhall and in particular the following:-
What Was Boxhall Doing
As for Boxhall's assessment that Titanic was pointing westwards when she stopped, I would suggest Boxhall was ill that night and suffering from the first stages of pleurisy if we believe he was suffering from pleurisy at the USA Inquiry. I personally have my doubts over all this. Boxhall strikes me as someone very petulant and parsimonious.
However, if we were to take the view that Boxhall was already ill the evening of 14th April, then certain things fall into place quite nicely...
His being in his cabin having a cup of tea as he stated in the 1962 BBC Radio Interview when Titanic struck the ice berg. His messing up of the CQD position. His failure to be on the bridge at the time of impact. His failure to then see the iceberg clearly when he did get to the bridge.His failure to recall precisely how many Rockets were fired from Titanic. His meanderings down below to see the damage despite no orders to do this and of his own initiative. All the nonsense about Emergency Boat 2 being rowed almost underneath the stern out of the water. His failure to notice that the ship's clocks had not been set back prior to midnight.
I am not a Doctor of medicine or know a great deal about pleurisy except I have had friends suffer from pleurisy.
It seems to me arguable that Boxhall was suffering from the first stages of pleurisy on the 14th April, and that this was well known and carefully covered up, and why he had such an easy watch that evening, and why Murdoch was alone on the bridge when the ice berg was seen and struck. He might not have had pleurisy as such as we understand it today. Perhaps he had developed a chest infection with feverish episodes.
I think there is a lot more to all this that deserves closer examination.
My own view is that Boxhall was lying in significant parts of his testimony. He muddied the waters same as Groves did on The Californian. He was in emergency lifeboat 2 for some 2 hours 25 minutes in the freezing cold, and was on deck on Titanic for perhaps 1 hour 15 minutes or so prior to Titanic sinking.
In the 1962 BBC Radio Interview, Boxhall makes no reference whatsoever to his subsequent pluerisy. Lightoller at the USA Inquiry gave evidence that Boxhall could not resume/give his evidence because the Doctor had told him so, and would not give an opinion as to whether he (Lightoller) considered Boxhall unable to give evidence.
Cheers,
Julian
What Was Boxhall Doing
As for Boxhall's assessment that Titanic was pointing westwards when she stopped, I would suggest Boxhall was ill that night and suffering from the first stages of pleurisy if we believe he was suffering from pleurisy at the USA Inquiry. I personally have my doubts over all this. Boxhall strikes me as someone very petulant and parsimonious.
However, if we were to take the view that Boxhall was already ill the evening of 14th April, then certain things fall into place quite nicely...
His being in his cabin having a cup of tea as he stated in the 1962 BBC Radio Interview when Titanic struck the ice berg. His messing up of the CQD position. His failure to be on the bridge at the time of impact. His failure to then see the iceberg clearly when he did get to the bridge.His failure to recall precisely how many Rockets were fired from Titanic. His meanderings down below to see the damage despite no orders to do this and of his own initiative. All the nonsense about Emergency Boat 2 being rowed almost underneath the stern out of the water. His failure to notice that the ship's clocks had not been set back prior to midnight.
I am not a Doctor of medicine or know a great deal about pleurisy except I have had friends suffer from pleurisy.
It seems to me arguable that Boxhall was suffering from the first stages of pleurisy on the 14th April, and that this was well known and carefully covered up, and why he had such an easy watch that evening, and why Murdoch was alone on the bridge when the ice berg was seen and struck. He might not have had pleurisy as such as we understand it today. Perhaps he had developed a chest infection with feverish episodes.
I think there is a lot more to all this that deserves closer examination.
My own view is that Boxhall was lying in significant parts of his testimony. He muddied the waters same as Groves did on The Californian. He was in emergency lifeboat 2 for some 2 hours 25 minutes in the freezing cold, and was on deck on Titanic for perhaps 1 hour 15 minutes or so prior to Titanic sinking.
In the 1962 BBC Radio Interview, Boxhall makes no reference whatsoever to his subsequent pluerisy. Lightoller at the USA Inquiry gave evidence that Boxhall could not resume/give his evidence because the Doctor had told him so, and would not give an opinion as to whether he (Lightoller) considered Boxhall unable to give evidence.
Cheers,
Julian
Similar threads
