Was the forward funnel the only one to collapse

[Erik Wood]

I guess what interests me most, is just like todays funnels they are just a big exhaust system and are connected in several ways to the main space. I do know about boilers and modern stack design. But this differential water pressure thing has my mind going. I can't wait to read this research.

My theory has absoutley nothing to with the water pressure in relation to the funnel(s) collapse. It was all based off what was happening below in the way of structure. At one time (I think it is in my paper this way, but I might be wrong) it was my suggestion that perhaps the casing in the end is what caused the first funnel to go when it did.

The over all dynamics of the foundering from the get go and how it played out over the entire night contributed to this collapse. The water pressure theory I am assuming is somewhat different. Any idea when it is coming out???

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

>>I can't wait to read this research.<<

Neither can I.


I also apologize for my inference regarding the forward expansion joint, Parks. I received the impression from an earlier discussion I was having with Erik that hydraulics caused the ship to shift downward at the bow, and that subsequently forced open the expansion joint to some degree. I don't exactly remember what or where it was in that conversation, but something Erik had said gave me the impression that it was that shifting which played a part in, at least, the loosening of the second funnel from its base. Further, Gracie was talking about hanging onto the railing at the second funnel's base mere seconds before he went into the water. I received the impression from this that the second funnel was still standing when the water washed up onto the forward boat deck (the "wave") and carried Collapsibles A and B away. Of course, this was about the time the forward funnel fell. The initial shifting which Erik and I had been discussing, then - the shifting which seemed to open the forward expansion joint to some degree - must have happened long before the water reached the boat deck and thus before the second funnel fell. That tells me that the open expansion joint play no, or very little, part in the collapse of the second funnel, but it could have indirectly contributed to the loosening of the funnel from it's base (although it was obviously by no means the only contribution).

By the way, I realize that the gap at the forward expansion joint was caused by the impact with the bottom, but it seems to me that, with the water build up inside the hull, creating an off-balance of weight and subsequent pressure, would have jarred that expansion open to some degree, and that's that to which I was originally referring when I mentioned the expansion joint. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.

Also, my apologies to you, too, Erik, if it seemed that I was inferring you had said something you didn't. I was merely going on impression of something you had pointed out to me earlier.

 

[Erik Wood]

In years past the expansion joint has been up for debate, it seems to me that it's opening is relevent, not it's extent of opening, but the fact that it opened on the surface. In my theory this opening was created by other things in conjunction with it's natural design. It's opening (in my view) can be to some extent pre determined but what happens elsewhere.

Now having said that, that doesn't mean it couldn't have opened for some other reason, or variety/combination of reasons. To me the fact that it opened plays some part in the over all sinking. It's degree of openness as viewed today is of course (as Parks and Mark conclude) the result of hitting the bottom. But I still believe it was open to some degree (doesn't matter how much or little) on the surface just prior to being submerged.

This realm of research of course demands far more time then I have available. But the fact that it is being discussed again brings happiness and a smile to my face.

 

[T. Eric Brown]

I heard somewhere (I can't seem to remember where) that the ceiling of the gymnasium was made of wood while the rest of the superstructure was made of iron or steel. If this is true, it would explain the early collapse of the ceiling. I've seen pictures of the gymnasium ceiling that seem to support this. I believe that the #2 funnel fell shortly after the breakup and the bow was making its final plunge. The stay cables would have broken and the base would have been weakened. The bow sank pretty fast, so if it didn't break off then, it would have broken off on the way down, the turbidity from the sinking bow blowing it way away. The one curious fact that goes against this theory is that the foremast somehow remained with the crows nest still attached. Of all four funnels, the second seems to be the only one that we don't when it collapsed. If a funnel can be mysterious, it's the Titanic's second.

 

[Matt Pereira]

Number 1 funnel fell of to port crushing the port bridge wing cab, the number 2 funnel fell off to starbord crushing the roof of the gym, the third funnel not 100% sure if it fell after the break and the 4th funnel fell off to port after the whiplash effect of the break up. if the 3rd funnel didnt then it fell off after it sunk beneath the waves

 

[T. Eric Brown]

>>the third funnel not 100% sure if it fell after the break up<<

Does it matter? The third funnel would have been underwater about thirty seconds after the break up, given the now accepted angle of the ship at break up (between 30-50 degrees, not 70 as originally reported).

 

[quincy williams]

Matt: my great grandfather Charles Duane Williams was killed by a falling funnel. My grandfather in his memoirs does not state which funnel. Since my grandfather states they were on the starboard side of the ship, and visited the bridge and Capt Smith but left the bridge just prior to the first dip of the bow and the resulting wave. I always assumed it was Funnel No.1 which crushed my great grandfather. Now it may not be, if Funnel 1 fell to port and they were on the starboard side. I assume my grandfather has the correct side of the ship since Collapsable A was in the process of being launched on that side and he eventually found his way to Boat A in the water? It is known that the Funnel 2 crushed people as well? If so then it must be Funnel 2 that killed my great grandfather.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Now it may not be, if Funnel 1 fell to port and they were on the starboard side.<<

Interesting "IF" here. Did anybody in sworn testimony actually speak to where that funnel fell? Lights ended up in collapsible B and that one was washed off to port. I seem to recall that he barely missed being clobbered by the funnel.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

According to Lightoller, the last two collapsibles were carried by eddying or whatever to opposite sides of the ship after they had floated off. When he reached collapsible B it was on the starboard side of Titanic, and that's where it was positioned when the forward funnell fell and almost struck it.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

For reference, here are the relevant passages from Lightoller's memoirs (see also his testimonies at both Inquiries):

"I eventually came to the surface once again, this time alongside that last Engleheart boat which Hemming and I had launched from on top of the officers' quarters on the opposite side - for I was now on the starboard side, near the forward funnel."

"The terrific strain of bringing the after end of that huge hull clear out of the water, caused the expansion joint abaft No 1 funnel to open up. (These expansion joints were found necessary in big ships to allow the ship to 'work' in a seaway). The fact that the two wire stays to this funnel, on the after part led over and abaft the expansion joint, threw on them an extraordinary strain, eventually carrying away the port wire guy, to be followed almost immediately by the starboard one. Instantly the port one parted, the funnel started to fall, but the fact that the starboard one held a moment or two longer, gave this huge structure a pull over to that side of the ship, causing it to fall, with its scores of tons, right amongst the struggling mass of humanity already in the water. It struck the water between the Engleheart and the ship, actually missing me by inches."
.

 

[quincy williams]

So there are no survivors accounts of seeing the second funnel fall on people in the water or in the area of the starboard bridge wing?

How certain boats managed to show up on the opposite side of the ship from whence they were launched could be explained in another statement my grandfather said. He said just before the Titanic went down, the stern while rising high into the sky (so much so he could clearly see the propellers outlined against the sky) at the same time rotated around so the ship was pointed towards England. Were there any other accounts mentioning this rotation?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>So there are no survivors accounts of seeing the second funnel fall on people in the water or in the area of the starboard bridge wing? <<

Not as far as I know. In any event the second funnel is far enough back that it's extremely difficult to see how it could fall over and do the kind of damage to the starboard bride wing that we know occured. Funnel two would almost certainly have to slide down in that direction and that would change the nature and extent of the damage. You wouldn't likely see any of the davits surviving that would be in the way and yet there are davits there that survive.

 

[quincy williams]

Good point Michael in regards to the starboard davit. Then if they were indeed on the starboard side, the initial bow plunge wave must have taken or washed my great grandfather towards the port side. My grandfather never mentions his father being in the water when the funnel collapsed on top of him. And it just barely missed hitting him.

Thanks for everyones input on this.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Bob: Were the passages you quoted from Lightoller's book "Titanic and Other Ships"?

 

[Bob Godfrey]

That's right, Sam. His testimonies also leave no doubt that he, boat B and the funnel were all in close proximity in the water on the starboard side; eg in the US Inquiry he stated that he eventually surfaced:

"Alongside of that upturned boat that had been launched on the other side."
"Where had you gone at that time? Had you gone around the ship?"
"No, sir; the boat had come around."

He offered no suggestions in his testimonies of why the first funnel had fallen, and when questioned at the UK Inquiry about the second funnel his answers make it clear that he heard or saw nothing to suggest it had fallen, and was of the opinion that it had become immersed as the ship went under. But of course he was also adamant that the ship went down in one piece!
.