Titanic's Masthead Light

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Samuel Halpern: Titanic's Masthead Light

So the answer to our question of whether Titanic’s masthead light could be seen at a distance greater than 14 miles is absolutely yes!

In your article "Titanic’s Masthead Light", are you implying the mystery ship that Californian’s Captain Lord, Third Officer Groves and Second Officer Stone saw was the Titanic?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

What I am implying Capt. Collins in my article which can be accessed HERE is that the masthead light of Titanic would be seen as bright as the star Castor in the constellation Gemini if it came above the horizon at a distance of 22 miles from an observer located on the upper bridge of a ship like the Californian. At 17 miles it would appear as bright as the star Spica in Virgo, and at 12 miles it would be a little brighter than the bright star Procyon in Canis minor. If you or anyone else wants to take this further, feel free to do so.

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

We know, from the evidence, that the masthead light seen by Lord, Groves and Stone was accompanied by starboard and port sidelights. In order for this to occur, the mystery ship had to be much closer than 12 miles.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

At 12 miles away, Titanic's masthead light would appear as bright as a magnitude 0.25 star, or almost as bright as the star Rigel in Orion, and brighter than the star Procyon in Canis Minor. The rules in effect at the time for steamers required that a white masthead light be seen at a minimum distance of 5 miles to allow for the use of oil lamps. The minimum distance for sidelights were 2 miles. It is obvious that the reduced sidelight distance in the rules was to acknowledge the absorption due to the concentration of dyes used in the glass to get them to appear as red or green and the sensitivity of the eye to different colors.

Titanic’s sidelights were located at the boat deck level just under the wing cabs of the forebridge. For them to be seen at all from the bridge of the California meant the two ships had to be within about 17 miles of each other. At 12 miles they would be in range.

Just like the masthead light, the sidelights had a total of 32 CP. From close-up photos of Olympic and Titanic it appears that the height of the sidelight lenses were about the same as the masthead light, somewhere about 8 inches. This means that they would appear about as bright except for the losses in the color filters that made them appear as red or green. A typical transmission factor for green filtered light might only be about 35% that of clear glass, or a loss of a little more than one stellar magnitude. (It should also be pointed out that the eye is most sensitive in the yellow-green region of the spectrum, about 570 nanometers wavelength.) But even if we allow for greater loss, say 16% that of clear glass, this would result in a loss of 2 stellar magnitudes (which would be the maximum accounted for under the rules of 2 miles vs. 5 miles). So although it is likely that Titanic's sidelights would be almost as bright as the star Regulas in Leo (mag. 1.34) if seen from 12 miles away, they would not be any dimmer than a typical second magnitude star when viewed at that distance. And remember, the night of April 14, 1912 was perfectly clear and calm with excellent seeing conditions.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

For discussion and debate of Titanic's Masthead Light" which may be viewed at http://www.glts.org/articles/halpern/masthead_light.html

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Moderator's note: The posts relevant to this discussion have been moved to this new thread. Have fun fellas!

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

And remember, the night of April 14, 1912 was perfectly clear and calm with excellent seeing conditions.

From the evidence it is clear that Californian's Groves, Stone, and Apprentice Gibson flashed numerous Morse lamp signals to the vessel they saw stopped approximately five miles away with all its navigation lights clearly visible.

The evidence given into the Titanic disaster was that neither Fleet nor Lee, the lookouts, reported seeing any ship on the horizon while they were in the crow’s nest between the hours of 10 and 12. George Hogg, who relieved them at midnight and stayed in the crow’s nest until he was called to go away in the lifeboat, also did not see any steamer lights. It must therefore be concluded that no Morse lamp signals were seen.

It is inconceivable that the bridge would not have been notified that a ship was within sight between the time of the accident and the loading of the boats. Since the Californian had stopped in the ice at 10.21 p.m., it is also inconceivable that the lookouts would not have noticed her if she were indeed nearby.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

It is inconceivable that the bridge would not have been notified that a ship was within sight between the time of the accident and the loading of the boats.

The Californian was swinging slowly to starboard. By the time Stone relieved Groves the ship had swung so the Titanic was direct on the starboard beam. Her head was facing ENE magnetic. Before that, according to Groves, she facing about NE magnetic. When he first saw the lights of the vessel approaching about 11:30 it was more than 2 points abaft the beam. The only navigation light that would have been visible would have the stern light which was lower down and dimmer than the other navigations lights. Basically, until the ship swung so that her mast lights and sidelight were no longer shut out, she would have been virtually unnoticed. And we are not talking about 5 miles here. More likely 10-12.

 

[Darin James Miller]

so is there any concrete evidence into the actual separation distance between the two vessels? also, what about the radio calls, it been said that the radio operator was asleep and could not have heard distress calls delivered from Titanic. ANy reference?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

is there any concrete evidence into the actual separation distance between the two vessels?

No Darin, there is no "concrete" evidence. If there were, the Californian affair would not be an issue. Most accounts point to subjective estimates. To quote a passage from my four-part article in the THS Commutator, Light on the Horizon,

We cannot, and should not, rely on subjective estimates of distances based on nighttime observations. The only thing that people saw that night were the lights of another ship. From the Titanic they saw lights of steamer that seamed to approach and then turn away. From the Californian they saw the lights of steamer that seamed to have stopped for the night on account of the ice. Just lights were seen. No hull form or silhouette. Most estimates of distances were based on the brightness of the lights, something very subjective and very unreliable...On that very clear, dark and moonless night that prevailed at the time, lights tended to appear brighter than expected, a condition which lead many trained seamen to generally underestimate distances.

What I did was to take a completely different approach to finding estimates for the stopped distance between the two ships. The first was based on the geometry of the approach of the steamer seen from the Californian. The second method was based on estimates of distance to a yellow funneled steamer seen in the morning twilight by Lord of the Californian and Rostron of the Carpathia. The third method made use of the geometry of the ice field seen in the morning and described by Lord, Rostron, and Capt. Moore of the Mount Temple. The fourth method I used made use the disappearance of the red sidelight of the Titanic just before the last socket signal was fired from her deck. All these independent analytical methods indicate a range from about 10 to 14 miles.

As far as Californian's radio operator, he already had turn in for the night before Titanic's wireless distress messages were sent out. The primary reference for this is the British Inquiry, questions 9026-9050. You can read this HERE.

 

[Mila]

Hi everybody,
Is it know what distance the Titanic's masthead lamp was able to lit up?

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi everybody,
Is it know what distance the Titanic's masthead lamp was able to lit up?

Hello Mila.

The regulation distance was 5 miles with the naked eye. It was visible around the horizon for 225 degrees...112.5 degrees on either side of right ahead.
In practice, it would have been visible a great deal further with binoculars or a telescope. You will see claims on this and other sites that it was seen at distances greater than 12 miles but in practice, even in the best of conditions. that would have been highly unlikely.

 

[Mila]

Hello Mila.

The regulation distance was 5 miles with the naked eye. It was visible around the horizon for 225 degrees...112.5 degrees on either side of right ahead.
In practice, it would have been visible a great deal further with binoculars or a telescope. You will see claims on this and other sites that it was seen at distances greater than 12 miles but in practice, even in the best of conditions. that would have been highly unlikely.

Hello Jim,

I probably did not formulate my question correctly.
I was asking for how many kilometers or meters the Titanic's masthead light was able to lit up the ocean ahead, allowing the lookouts to see something in the dark?
I now believe that they saw the iceberg only, when it got lit up by the masthead's light.
Remember Fleet testified it was at first small as two tables put together. It was the part lit up by the light.
I believe that Lee's black mass getting out of the haze was actually that iceberg getting lit up more and more by the masthead's light.
I believe that black mass in a strong stream of light surrounded by the darkness might have been perceived as it was coming out of the haze.
Agree?

 

[Aaron_2016]

Not sure if the light could illuminate anything ahead. If it did, then it would hamper the vision of the lookouts which is why the forward deck had to be dark during the night. Regarding the distance that her masthead light could be seen. I have seen ship's lights appear more than 20 miles away when there is refraction. Or is the correct term 'looming'? Lightoller mentioned how lights could be seen 60 miles away when they are looming above the horizon.


Q - The man on the look-out is not always standing with the binoculars up to his eyes?
A - No, certainly not.
Q - They are there for use when he thinks it desirable to use them?
A - Precisely. You see, if I may point out, binoculars, with regard to lights, are extremely useful; that is to say, there is no doubt you will distinguish a light quicker. If you set a man to look out for a certain light, and he reports a light it is quite a matter for us to ring him up on the telephone and ask, “What character is that light?” The man may, on a clear night, see the reflection of the light before it comes above the horizon. It may be the loom of the light and you see it sometimes sixty miles away. He may just make sure of it with the glasses, because there is any amount of time - hours; there is no hurry about them on a clear night at all. You make absolutely certain then about the light, and so as to be in that position we ring him up to say exactly what it is; but when it comes to derelict wrecks or icebergs, the man must not hesitate a moment, and on the first suspicion, before he has time to put his hand to the glasses or anything, one, two, or three bells must be immediately struck, and then he can go ahead with his glasses and do what he likes, but he must report first on suspicion.

.

 

[Mila]

Not sure if the light could illuminate anything ahead. If it did, then it would hamper the vision of the lookouts which is why the forward deck had to be dark during the night.

Hi Aaron, then according to you I should turn off the headlights off my car, when I am driving at night time because they hamper my vision?
I don't think so. My vision is hampered not by my headlights, but the headlights of the cars that are moving in opposite direction, towards me.
I understand that some other lights could have impacted the vision of the lookouts, but the masthead light much above their height would probably have not. I cannot find it now, but I believed somebody from another ship did testify they only were able to see an iceberg, when it was lit up by their navigational lights.
The looming has nothing to do with spotting of the iceberg. No matter how much it was loomed (and it probably was not) it could not have been spotted before it got 1/4 miles to the Titanic anyway. BTW Fleet stated that binoculars, if he had them, would have helped him to see the iceberg earlier.