Time of the break

[Stephen Stanger]

Sorry if I seem a prat for all the angle stuff but could anyone disclose the approximate time of the ships breaking.
I know (Thank You Raymond) that it began to split at an angle of 78.967 degrees, and from that I figured that it was at an angle of 19.90 degrees at @2am.
Now I'm trying to judge the rate the angle increased between 2am and the time that it broke.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I would have to wonder where this 78.967 degrees comes from as it's not supported by the actual condition of the wreck. You'll notice that the boilers are still secure on their foundations, which they wouldn't have been if the ship had reached an angle that acute.

As to the time of the break, as far as I know, that's never been determined. If you wish to understand the dynamics of the sinking, then you should click on Roy Mengot's The Wreck of RMS Titanic if you haven't already. It's about as thorough as they come.

 

[Stephen Stanger]

Since the boilers were placed across the beam instead of up and down the length, then wouldn't there have been less chance of them rolling out anyway?

 

[Adam Leet]

The placement of the boilers isn't really important. What is important is that you're suggesting the ship reached a near-perpendicular angle before breaking up. The weight of the boilers alone would've been more than enough to dismount them, and send them through the bulkheads. Those things weighed in the neighborhood of 100+ tons, so it wouldn't take a lot for them to fall.


Adam

 

[Stephen Stanger]

As I recall there are a few boilers in the silt down there, probably from the stern half.
Besides the forward part would have been pointing straight nose down under the water at some point before the two split, how come the boilers didn't bust through the prow?

 

[Adam Leet]

The boilers on the seabed are from Boiler Room #1, the aftmost BR in the ship. They happened to be in the location where the breakup occurred.

As for the boilers not crashing through the bow, it's because the ship didn't reach a near-perpendicular angle as you suggested. Rather, the bow likely reached no greater an angle than 65 degrees, and that was after the breakup, as the bow section was planing towards the seabed.


Adam

 

[Stephen Stanger]

I would have figured that at some time before the bow split from the stern that it had to have been facing 90 degrees straight down, would it not have taken at least that much before the keel snapped?
As the bow sank I have always envisioned it doing a sort of back and forth pendulum thing before coming to rest instead of just shooting diagonally down at an angle.
If it did roar straight down at an angle, then what was to stop the bow section from flipping A over T when it carved through the silt to impact on the bottom?

 

[Adam Leet]

Simply put, to anthropomorphise it, a ship hates to land upside down, unless it's built top-heavy. The heaviest equipment (keel included) were located low on the ship. As a result, there is little likelihood that the Titanic would have "flipped over". You can also see this with the Bismarck, which is sitting upright, despite having rolled over at the surface.

As for the bow section reaching a 90 degree angle at breakup, this is why current theories point to the ship not reaching any greater angle than 25-30 degrees. As a result, the bow would not have ever reached a 90 degree perpendicular, resulting in the boilers dislodging from their mounts. This also does not conflict with the theory the bow section floated like a leaf down towards the seabed. Such a descent would not have produced an extreme enough angle for the boilers to fall from their mounts.

At any rate, why do you think the boilers would have been able to remain in place at extreme angles? Keep in mind that you're dealing with 100+ ton objects, that are held in place by little more than gravity and a few bolts.


Adam

 

[Kyrila Scully]

Hello, boys. The pendulum swing you describe the bow making as she floated toward the bottom of the ocean (which has also been described as the action of a leaf falling from a tree in a see-saw movement) has been scientifically proven and documented on film. This experiment was conducted in a Naval tank several times and each time the bow see-sawed to the bottom. If you can get your hands on Steve Santini's model and book, you can put it in a swimming pool and see the same thing happen each time you perform the experiment. Conversely, the stern will also rotate and fall into place a distance away each and every time. You just can't change the laws of physics, which is a wonderful thing when studying things such as this. Science never fails, although theories sometimes do. If you would like to see this documentary of the experiments, just keep a watch on the Discovery Channel or History Channel for "Answers From the Abyss."

All the best,
Kyrila

 

[Stephen Stanger]

Are you sure about the descent not producing enough stress? I mean the boilers can be seen plain as day from the rear of the bow and it looks like it would have been easy for them to slide out as the ship was see sawing.
Besides, they would have to have had more than a few bolts and gravity just in prep for the swells that a North Atlantic storm can throw.

 

[Adam Leet]

The term "a few bolts" was a faceteous one. Of course the boilers were held down with quite a few more. What I was trying to point out was that it was impossible for the boilers to have remained on their mounts at the 79-degree angle you described (and interpreted as being the angle the ship reached before break-up. The bow section may have approached the angle *after* the break, but not before.

Another reason the ship wouldn't have attained 79 degrees before breakup was that the ship *couldn't* have handled that extreme an angle. Titanic would most likely have broken far before she attained that angle.

On the subject, would you be willing to provide your evidence that suggests the ship reached 79 degrees *before* breaking in two?


-Adam

 

[Erik Wood]

Adam Leet wrote: As for the bow section reaching a 90 degree angle at breakup, this is why current theories point to the ship not reaching any greater angle than 25-30 degrees.

Sorry for the long delay in my comments. This is something that was indirectly commented on at the Technical event held in Topeka this last September. One of the attendee's was Roy Mengot who brough his wonderful wreck model.

Just a little food for though, if the ship had reached a down angle of over 45 degrees you could (I would have to actually do the math) most likely have a larger debris field and more of the ship missing. It is almost impossible for the ship to have reached a 90 degree angle and split where she did.

Somebody mentioned a number that Mike S. quoted as 78.967 degrees , I too would like to know where this number comes from, it isn't supported by the condition of the wreck, or what folks saw, not to mention the math involved in water placement.

That being said is more then possible that I am completely off my rocker. I am going to do some more digging.

 

[Stephen Stanger]

Check the thread on Titanic's Sinking Angle and you'll see what I was referring to.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

The claim was made by Raymond John Mulhall;

quote:

I can tell you the angle when she hit the iceberg was 1 deg and incresed 5.67 deg every 45 minutes until it broke in two where the stern rose to 78.967 deg

What we're curious about is the source that backs up this particular claim, especially when the actual forensics don't support it.​

 

[Parks Stephenson]

I would like to mention something here.

At the BOT Enquiry (Questions 20916-20917), H&W Naval Architect Edward Wilding stated that the boilers would come loose from their foundations when the trim angle reached 35 degrees. I have no reason to doubt his statement, as Wilding was involved in the design of the ship.

Examination of the wreck reveals that the boilers in Boiler Room #2 are still seated in their foundations.

Returning to Wilding's testimony, Question 20918 is quite illuminating (no pun intended):

20918. (Mr. Laing.) There is another matter about the boilers which occurs to me. The fact that the electric lights of this vessel remained burning up to the moment almost that she disappeared, does that indicate anything to you as to the condition of the boilers? - It indicates that one boiler room, most probably No. 2, was still supplying steam to the emergency dynamos.

It appears that Wilding's extrapolation and observations recorded at the wreck site corroborate one another nicely.

As best as we can determine, the lights failed just before or during the actual break. Taken together, I see the evidence pointing to one conclusion -- that the trim angle of the hull never exceeded 35 degrees (bow down), either before or after the hull girder failed.

This will also explain why there's no evidence of boilers crashing forward.

Parks