Was the forward funnel the only one to collapse

[Ben Holme]

Certainly, the evidence of John B. Thayer Jr is consitent with the physical condition of the wreck of the 2nd funnel, as expounded upon above.

Thayer was meticulous in his description of the juncture at which he and Milton Long left the ship. He clearly indicates, from his description of the railing which he "straddled" preparatory to jumping, that he and Long were amidships on the starboard side.

Hence, it is likely that the funnel described here:

"The second funnel, large enough for two automobiles to pass through abreast, seemed to be lifted off, emitting a cloud of sparks. It looked as if it would fall on top of me. It missed me by twenty or thirty feet."

...was the 2nd funnel, which would have been a matter of feet away from him as he departed the ship. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the funnel was submergd *before* detaching from the ship.

Best Regards,
Ben

 

[Iain Stuart Yardley]

Does anyone believe Greaser Alfred White's story about being inside one of the collapsing funnels when it fell into the sea?

Cheers,

Boz

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Ben,

I agree with what you're saying, but consider that there are two objects to consider here...the funnel and the boiler uptakes upon which the funnel "sits." What happens to the funnel if the uptake below shifts?

Also, it is very likely that the angle of trim of the vessel at the time of the #2 funnel collapse was greater than it was when the forward funnel collapsed. This may have been more of a factor for #2 than it was for #1.

Boz,

I can't assess that story. He couldn't have been inside the actual uptake, but there are ladders (including the emergency ladders from the boiler rooms) in the casing just outside the uptake itself...maybe he was caught there.

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Boz,

I correct myself...I answered too soon in my rush to get ready for work. I forgot that White went up the #4 funnel. I can certainly believe that he made his way up the emergency ladders inside the engine casing, seeing the obstacles he encountered on his way through the 3rd-class areas. It would seem from his account that he made his way outside, where he could look down on the decks below. It's that part of the story that I cannot speak to. Theoretically, it's possible, but why would he go up the funnel when the ship was sinking and his best chance for abandoning ship was at the Boat Deck level? I just don't know.

It is interesting to note that according to White's description, the #4 funnel didn't fall until the breakup. The angle of trim at that point would have been greater than when #2 fell.

Parks

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Theoretically, it's possible, but why would he go up the funnel when the ship was sinking and his best chance for abandoning ship was at the Boat Deck level? I just don't know. <<

Perhaps because in his view, it was the only way left to him? Just speculation on my part, but with the ship starting to come unglued, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. White saw some convincing...and terrifying...evidence of this long befor anyone out on deck did. Something that would convince him that bailing out by way of the Number 4 funnel was the least of the evils.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

"The animation is being revised to accommodate new findings but unless those legal hurdles can be leaped, the revised animation may not become public. In other words, all the work going into a new revision may be for naught"

What a waste that would be. Sure hope it goes through, Parks.

 

[Steven Hall]

It's always a waste Jason.
Only those that make the policy to restrict access know why they do it.
For me, I have never lost a wink of sleep thinking about it.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

One has to wonder if there's no intention of making anything public, like that revised animation everyone is going on about, why anyone even bothers to do it.

 

[Ben Holme]

Hi Parks,

I'm afraid I'm woefully unschooled in regards to the technical aspects of Titanic's demise, but I note with interest your comments on the bolier uptakes. Could this account for the sparks which Thayer observed to emanate from the funnel as it fell? Certainly, there seems to be a correlation between the eye-witness accounts and the current condition of the "funnel 2" locality, as described in your post above.

I was also interested by your:

...it is very likely that the angle of trim of the vessel at the time of the #2 funnel collapse was greater than it was when the forward funnel collapsed.

I have never satisfactorily established the correct succession of "funnel falling", and I'm uncertain as to how much time elapsed, if any, between the 1st and 2nd funnel canting over. According to the affidavit of Emily Ryerson, they appeared to "lean" forward at the same time.

Hi Boz,

I'm with Parks in regards to the likelihood of White's "climbing inside the funnel" story being authentic. I have major problems with the later details though.

I don't believe for a moment that he remained inside the funnel as it crashed to the deck, later to roll into the sea. Nor do I believe for second, that he could jettison such a vast metalic object before its vortex sucked him down.

I'm sure I've used the above as an excuse for not doing my homework.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Michael,

The answer to your question is actually straightforward...the modelling and animation of computer-generated imagery (CGI) is so time-consuming that if you wait until permission is granted to start, then you will not meet your need date. In the movie business, props are built, CGI is completed and scenes are shot that will never be seen by the public. I'll have more on this later, after the lawyers have come to an agreement.

Ben,

I don't know what Thayer saw. Did he see embers brought up from the boilers, severed electrical lines, metal scraping against metal...I just don't know. I can only take him at his word.

I don't know the timeline of the funnels falling, either. Just like anyone else, I know from the testimony about when the #1 funnel fell (and from the devastation of the stokehold vent and bridge area). And I have seen evidence that the #2 funnel fell and damaged the deck and the structures around it, leading to the assumption that it fell before that area of the deck submerged completely.

I'm not aware that White claimed to ride the funnel as it crashed to the sea. I know that he claimed to have looked down on people and was later in the water, but I don't remember him describing how he got from his high vantage point to the water. Is there something that I have missed, or his "ride" assumed?

Parks

 

[Erik Wood]

I don't really have a theory as to the second funnel, at this point it has nothing to do with my research. I just found it curious that there is evidence that it fell prior to the full foundering of the vessel.

This actually opens the door to other areas of research. To include the expansion joint, but somewhat in the opposite direction that in it (research) has gone in the past.

In my mind this would lend to the idea (which goes against a published theory of mine) that the opening of the expansion joint may have been more related to something else rather then internal works. In my mind it MIGHT indicate that perhaps the frame work was in better condition directly after the accident then I orignally thought. I know this is kind of a stretch in how I got from A to B in this post, but if the second funnel fell because of angle, perhaps the collapse of the first had little to do with the expansion joint opening, frame work instability or anything else.

I know Parks can't devulge information, but I would be interested as to what exact direct evidence there is (other then what is mentioned here) about the collapse of the second funnel, and any pictures that may accompany it.

Not being privy to information gained from the wreck in recent years, the differential water pressure theory intrigues me. I have NEVER dealt with a stayed stack. My experience all comes second, third or fourth hand for the most part. The assumptions in my theory where based of this, NOT practical experience that I physically gained. The rest regarding structure does.

If the theory as I understand it works out, then I need to completely rethink my theory, as do those who contributed to the grounding paper theory as it currently sits. All of this information boils down to (as I understand it now) that the ship might have been in far better condition directly after the accident then I and some others have given it credit for...which would then in turn mean that something else must have caused the foundering, if the water intake as the testimony indicates is accurate.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>If the theory as I understand it works out, then I need to completely rethink my theory,<<

Maybe and maybe not. The catch is that by this point in the sinking, things were already happening so fast that the falling of the second stack befor the hull was submerged may not mean much of anything at all. Think of a house of cards falling over. By the time one card goes, the rest follow so quickly that the order no longer matters much.

 

[Ben Holme]

Parks,

The aformentioned "ride" is from a comtemporary account which I don't, alas, have to hand at present. The story, which is admittedly apocryphal, is referred to in Charles Pellegrino's "Ghosts of the Titanic".

Here, I rather formed the impression that the author placed far greater credence in White's alleged method of escape than most other researchers would.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Ben,

Since we talked, I read through White's letter to Mr. Parr's brother-in-law and Charlie's notes on discussions between himself, Walter Lord, and Bill MacQuitty. White does not explain in his letter how he ended up in the water after looking out from the platform atop the stack. There is further detail that MacQuitty was aware of and considered including in ANTR, but White's account of the ship splitting in two near the aft staircase was too controversial a subject to tackle in 1956. Even in the additional detail, though, White himself cannot remember the stack falling or how he ended up in the water.

Was he flung from his perch? Did he ride it down, like Joughin on the fantail railing? We don't know.

I can ask Charlie next week if he knows more about the source of the additional detail that was not included in White's original letter to Johnston. Maybe there is something in Walter Lord's archive that hasn't yet been published.

By the way, I should make it clear that my analysis of the recent images of the area around the #2 funnel and Gymnasium is not yet complete. The reason why I don't consider it complete is because there are some unanswered issues that stand in the way of an easy conclusion. For instance, even though I am convinced that the large hole in the Boat Deck and the early collapse of the Gymnasium roof are the result of the funnel hitting the area in 1912, I cannot explain why the coaming of the Gymnasium roof is relatively intact. So, the thought process continues...you have my early assessment, which may change after further consideration or more detailed evidence.

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Erik,

My observations about the damage caused by (I believe) the #2 stack were recorded while I was performing analysis for NOAA on the 2004 expedition images. I currently do not have those images to share, unfortunately...they belong to NOAA and IFE/URI still retains proprietary rights until their scientists complete their analysis.

I will stress again that the funnel must be considered as an extension of the boilers, boiler updrafts and boiler casing underneath. The funnel is not an independent entity that sits atop the Boat Deck, held in place only by a deck-level base and taut guy wires. It is part of, and affected by, the entire boiler system. The wires weren't even taut...the wires were designed to have a certain amount of slack in them to keep the stacks from being held too rigidly to the flexing superstructure. How else could the expansion joint do its job, when funnel stays straddled it?

You haven't dealt with a stayed stack because funnel design and engine technology are much more refined today. No need today for the towering stack to keep coal smoke as far away from the passengers (and ship's upperworks) as possible. Aerodynamics are now incorporated into funnel design. In Titanic's day, the stays were needed solely to counteract the large amount of freeboard effect created by the towering stack during rough weather, not to support the stack's weight. The short, squat, mostly-teardrop-shaped stacks that you are used to don't generate the freeboard effect that the cylindrical stacks of Titanic's day did, so there's no use for stays. But, you probably know this already.

Parks