Samuel Halpern
Member
Barrett, when came back with lamps after the lights went out.
The Titanic and her watertight compartments
- Thread starter Brian Robert Rose
- Start date
Samuel Halpern
Member
Are you suggesting Capt. Erik that the ship could have been saved if they had had the knowledge you allude to?
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Barrett, when came back with lamps after the lights went out.<<
Got it. Thanks. I can't seem to keep track of all the players these days. I located the relevant testimony from the BOT invesigation.
Got it. Thanks. I can't seem to keep track of all the players these days. I located the relevant testimony from the BOT invesigation.
The question that goes begging in this case is if lifting the safeties was not enough to blow it all out as per what Kelly said, it makes you wonder where the rest of it went.
I find this thread very interesting, and I have no expertise on the subject, but just wanted to chime in.
Samuel stated Andrews words giving the ship 1 to 1.5 hours to live. Yet, she was still with us 2.5 hours later. I would like to think this was because Bell and his fellow engineers exhausted all possibilities to keep her up.
I remember reading somewhere that the machinery would have gone on working just fine without the engineers and that maybe their staying at their posts was in vain.
Which I do not believe.
As you all have been stating, there are little tweaks and measures taken by ships engineers that the common man, such as myself, would not understand.
Not to get off on a tangent, but I still wonder at the idea of letting the ship flood on an even keel, and letting the aft pumps have a go at it. I know it's been discussed and re-enacted. Would this have caused the ship to list more or less?
It may have actually have given the passengers an even further false sense of security and a greater reluctance to get in a lifeboat.
Anyway, thank you all for your information and back to your discussion.
-Don
Samuel stated Andrews words giving the ship 1 to 1.5 hours to live. Yet, she was still with us 2.5 hours later. I would like to think this was because Bell and his fellow engineers exhausted all possibilities to keep her up.
I remember reading somewhere that the machinery would have gone on working just fine without the engineers and that maybe their staying at their posts was in vain.
Which I do not believe.
As you all have been stating, there are little tweaks and measures taken by ships engineers that the common man, such as myself, would not understand.
Not to get off on a tangent, but I still wonder at the idea of letting the ship flood on an even keel, and letting the aft pumps have a go at it. I know it's been discussed and re-enacted. Would this have caused the ship to list more or less?
It may have actually have given the passengers an even further false sense of security and a greater reluctance to get in a lifeboat.
Anyway, thank you all for your information and back to your discussion.
-Don
A few years ago I counted the boiler tubes and calculated the net boiler volume. The 24 DE boilers each hold about 8450 Imperial gallons or 32.6 long tons (2240 lbs) of fresh water.
The fires would only have to evaporate maybe 12” of water before the visible level would drop below the bottom of the approximately 20-24” sight glasses. That’s 6.74 long tons of water. At full power each boiler evaporated vaguely in the area of 6 long tons per hour. Maybe they didn’t carry a half glass, if it was 6” then an unattended glass would be empty in just over half an hour.
In reports be careful of casual language about manual blow offs or blow downs which directly drain water compared to safeties which by manual (ship practice, not railroad) or automatic lifting blow off steam, indirectly using water and lowering the level. And then there’s a silent blow off in the engine room. There’s enough word sloppiness here to keep a blowhard happy.
Bill
The fires would only have to evaporate maybe 12” of water before the visible level would drop below the bottom of the approximately 20-24” sight glasses. That’s 6.74 long tons of water. At full power each boiler evaporated vaguely in the area of 6 long tons per hour. Maybe they didn’t carry a half glass, if it was 6” then an unattended glass would be empty in just over half an hour.
In reports be careful of casual language about manual blow offs or blow downs which directly drain water compared to safeties which by manual (ship practice, not railroad) or automatic lifting blow off steam, indirectly using water and lowering the level. And then there’s a silent blow off in the engine room. There’s enough word sloppiness here to keep a blowhard happy.
Bill
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Would this have caused the ship to list more or less?<<
If you mean by leaving the watertight doors open, that much has already been tested using engineers models in a testing tank. The results were that the ship lost power earlier then she did in the real world once the water reached the dynamos, then rolled over and sank up to half to 3/4's of an hour earlier then she did in the real world.
The culprit here was free surface action causing the additional instability needed to put the vessel over on her side.
As the late Richard Phillips Feynman said, "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."
The oft proposed notion that letting the ship flood evenly by leaving the watertight doors open definately disagrees with the results of the experiment.
As it stands, I think it's notable that in the real world event, the Titanic did not list that much during the sinking, which is remarkable in and of itself.
If you mean by leaving the watertight doors open, that much has already been tested using engineers models in a testing tank. The results were that the ship lost power earlier then she did in the real world once the water reached the dynamos, then rolled over and sank up to half to 3/4's of an hour earlier then she did in the real world.
The culprit here was free surface action causing the additional instability needed to put the vessel over on her side.
As the late Richard Phillips Feynman said, "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."
The oft proposed notion that letting the ship flood evenly by leaving the watertight doors open definately disagrees with the results of the experiment.
As it stands, I think it's notable that in the real world event, the Titanic did not list that much during the sinking, which is remarkable in and of itself.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Hi Bill: I assume you subtracted the volume of the fire tubes and 3 furnaces, etc. from the boiler volume in deriving the volume of water held.
Sam, yes I did.
Double Ended boiler:
15’9” outside diameter(wrong, it’s inside), 1 11/16” thick shell. Divide the 20’0” length to a pair of 7’2” (inside) sections containing the tubes on the basis of being the same length as the shell wraps and a 5’4.5”(outside) section in the middle containing a combustion chamber. Water level to mid glass appears to be 12’ above the bottom or 2’ over the tubes. Taking that as 11’10” inside means the wet half of the end view covers 230 degrees of arc and the chord across it is 168”.
-Gross water volume of the tube sections then is 1,768,578 in3 each
-Fire tubes, 144 over each side furnace and 142 over the center. Tube spacing is 4” centers. So guess 2.75” tube OD (correct) and 7”2” inside length for 219,645.4 in3 in each end of the boiler.
-6 Furnaces are 4’0.5” OD (wrong), 7’2” length inside the tube plates. That’s 158,880.9 in3 each
-Combustion chamber wet circumference at boiler shell is 365.3”. Allow 156” length for the water blanket across the top of it (had 144” for my previous post). Assuming that the water space enclosing the chamber is 6” thick and has an outside length of 5’4.5” then gives an enclosing volume of 201,743.1 in3.
Tally:
plus two tube shell volumes........3,537,156 ..in3
minus two sets of tubes...............439,290.9
minus 6 furnaces.........................953,285.7
plus space around comb. chamb....201,743.1
total......................................2,346,322.5 in3....1357.83 ft3.... 8457.9 Imperial gallons (6.229 per ft3)
fresh water weight at 230psia (.01854 ft3 per pound) is 73,237.6 lbs....36.65 short tons....32.7 long tons (2240 lbs)
Single Ended boiler;
Same tube section, maybe 3’9.5” outside comb. chamb. section and 6’’ inside wet back section.
J.W.M. Sothern’s ‘“Verbal” Notes and Sketches’ 18th edition, Fig B83 is a drawing of Brittanic’s boiler (from “Engineering”), likely identical except length is 21’. I did not have this at the time I guessed the above calculations, definitely need to redo them but they will be close enough for what this thread is considering. PS, Fig F51 is a drawing of Aspinall’s governor.
Bill
Double Ended boiler:
15’9” outside diameter(wrong, it’s inside), 1 11/16” thick shell. Divide the 20’0” length to a pair of 7’2” (inside) sections containing the tubes on the basis of being the same length as the shell wraps and a 5’4.5”(outside) section in the middle containing a combustion chamber. Water level to mid glass appears to be 12’ above the bottom or 2’ over the tubes. Taking that as 11’10” inside means the wet half of the end view covers 230 degrees of arc and the chord across it is 168”.
-Gross water volume of the tube sections then is 1,768,578 in3 each
-Fire tubes, 144 over each side furnace and 142 over the center. Tube spacing is 4” centers. So guess 2.75” tube OD (correct) and 7”2” inside length for 219,645.4 in3 in each end of the boiler.
-6 Furnaces are 4’0.5” OD (wrong), 7’2” length inside the tube plates. That’s 158,880.9 in3 each
-Combustion chamber wet circumference at boiler shell is 365.3”. Allow 156” length for the water blanket across the top of it (had 144” for my previous post). Assuming that the water space enclosing the chamber is 6” thick and has an outside length of 5’4.5” then gives an enclosing volume of 201,743.1 in3.
Tally:
plus two tube shell volumes........3,537,156 ..in3
minus two sets of tubes...............439,290.9
minus 6 furnaces.........................953,285.7
plus space around comb. chamb....201,743.1
total......................................2,346,322.5 in3....1357.83 ft3.... 8457.9 Imperial gallons (6.229 per ft3)
fresh water weight at 230psia (.01854 ft3 per pound) is 73,237.6 lbs....36.65 short tons....32.7 long tons (2240 lbs)
Single Ended boiler;
Same tube section, maybe 3’9.5” outside comb. chamb. section and 6’’ inside wet back section.
J.W.M. Sothern’s ‘“Verbal” Notes and Sketches’ 18th edition, Fig B83 is a drawing of Brittanic’s boiler (from “Engineering”), likely identical except length is 21’. I did not have this at the time I guessed the above calculations, definitely need to redo them but they will be close enough for what this thread is considering. PS, Fig F51 is a drawing of Aspinall’s governor.
Bill
Kelly Anderson
Member
>>Can anyone say that they didn't blow out some of the boilers?<<
It’s doubtful. Blowing down a fully pressurized boiler isn’t a stealthy process. If blowing down out the side of the ship above the water line, it would create a jet of mixed steam and water equivalent in noise to the steam being released by the safeties, think “Old Faithful” geyser in Yellowstone Park. Note that this would have prevented launching any lifeboats in the immediate vicinity (not so good). If blowing down below the surface of the ocean, a continuous low rumble similar to thunder is heard, and a vibration is felt through the structure of the ship for a considerable distance. Someone would have noticed.
>>The fires would only have to evaporate maybe 12” of water before the visible level would drop below the bottom of the approximately 20-24” sight glasses. That’s 6.74 long tons of water. At full power each boiler evaporated vaguely in the area of 6 long tons per hour. Maybe they didn’t carry a half glass, if it was 6” then an unattended glass would be empty in just over half an hour.<<
Also, the location of the gauges on the boilers would make a difference. If the water gauges being looked at were on the aft end of the boilers, the ship’s down-by-the-bow condition would have dropped the water level visible. There generally is no way to tell the water level in a boiler once it has dropped below the normal operating range covered by the gauge glass.
It’s doubtful. Blowing down a fully pressurized boiler isn’t a stealthy process. If blowing down out the side of the ship above the water line, it would create a jet of mixed steam and water equivalent in noise to the steam being released by the safeties, think “Old Faithful” geyser in Yellowstone Park. Note that this would have prevented launching any lifeboats in the immediate vicinity (not so good). If blowing down below the surface of the ocean, a continuous low rumble similar to thunder is heard, and a vibration is felt through the structure of the ship for a considerable distance. Someone would have noticed.
>>The fires would only have to evaporate maybe 12” of water before the visible level would drop below the bottom of the approximately 20-24” sight glasses. That’s 6.74 long tons of water. At full power each boiler evaporated vaguely in the area of 6 long tons per hour. Maybe they didn’t carry a half glass, if it was 6” then an unattended glass would be empty in just over half an hour.<<
Also, the location of the gauges on the boilers would make a difference. If the water gauges being looked at were on the aft end of the boilers, the ship’s down-by-the-bow condition would have dropped the water level visible. There generally is no way to tell the water level in a boiler once it has dropped below the normal operating range covered by the gauge glass.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Nice work Bill. Looks like emptying 5 DE boilers in a boiler room is equivalent to reducing the water level in a flooded 57' X 92' boiler room compartment by only 13 inches thereabouts.
Peter Spielvogel
Member
Sorry for the late response Sam:
I am not saying that all. What I am getting at is that Bell and company did not have the knowledge (due to no fault of theres) to perform damage control tasks that could have made a difference.
The word "difference" is relative. I do not think the ship was savable. I do however think that some things could have been done to prolong the ships life. For how long, nobody will know or can know.
I use the word "think" because I have no proof and do not have the ability to prove it.
The things I speak of require modern teachings and equipment. Things that where 20 to 30 years down the road.
Of course I could be totally wrong that is the joy and frustration of Titanic. There is no way to know exactly what damage was done directly after impact so all of my pondering is just that.
I am not saying that all. What I am getting at is that Bell and company did not have the knowledge (due to no fault of theres) to perform damage control tasks that could have made a difference.
The word "difference" is relative. I do not think the ship was savable. I do however think that some things could have been done to prolong the ships life. For how long, nobody will know or can know.
I use the word "think" because I have no proof and do not have the ability to prove it.
The things I speak of require modern teachings and equipment. Things that where 20 to 30 years down the road.
Of course I could be totally wrong that is the joy and frustration of Titanic. There is no way to know exactly what damage was done directly after impact so all of my pondering is just that.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Thanks for the clarification Capt. Erik. Now I understand. I think we can all agree that under the circumstances they were facing, they did a miraculous job.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Did anyone ever test what would happen if her bulkheads all went up to C-deck?<<
I'd be truely amazed if somebody failed to crunch the numbers over the past century on that question. If I recall correctly, Edward Wilding alluded to the probable result of several scenerios in his testimony and you can be certain that his sliderule got quite a workout to produce the answers he gave. If Roy Mengot is lurking, perhaps he can speak to any contemporary research that may have been done. He's the chap who's studied the ground.
The Britannic was a "lessons learned" sort of ship and her design included bulkheads that were raised higher. Five of them to B-deck. (See http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/history.htm and scroll halfway down for some information on that). They might have even saved her had the extra features been used.
That little detail speaks to some other uncomfortable realities in regards to shipboard damage control. It's not enough to have the extra features which enhance the ship's survivability, the crew needs to know how to use it all and actually do it and understand the need to do so.
They didn't, and it's a matter of record that divers going into the wreck found the watertight door to Boiler Room Six wide open. (Operating in waters which were known to be mined, it should have been closed.) It's also known that the portholes on E-deck were open to air the ward out, contrary to orders which dictated that they be closed.
I'd be truely amazed if somebody failed to crunch the numbers over the past century on that question. If I recall correctly, Edward Wilding alluded to the probable result of several scenerios in his testimony and you can be certain that his sliderule got quite a workout to produce the answers he gave. If Roy Mengot is lurking, perhaps he can speak to any contemporary research that may have been done. He's the chap who's studied the ground.
The Britannic was a "lessons learned" sort of ship and her design included bulkheads that were raised higher. Five of them to B-deck. (See http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/history.htm and scroll halfway down for some information on that). They might have even saved her had the extra features been used.
That little detail speaks to some other uncomfortable realities in regards to shipboard damage control. It's not enough to have the extra features which enhance the ship's survivability, the crew needs to know how to use it all and actually do it and understand the need to do so.
They didn't, and it's a matter of record that divers going into the wreck found the watertight door to Boiler Room Six wide open. (Operating in waters which were known to be mined, it should have been closed.) It's also known that the portholes on E-deck were open to air the ward out, contrary to orders which dictated that they be closed.
Similar threads
