What color(s) were Titanic's rockets?

[David G. Brown]

Water was in beta testing when I came along, so I'm an old curmudgeon and right now I'm going to exercise the privileges of being a crusty old sailor.

Videos no matter how well crafted are simply somebody's (or a committee of somebodies') opinion about what happened. In no way should an animation or a reenactment on screen be confused with history any more than the set for Cameron's movie should be confused with the real ship. This may come as a shock, but real research takes work (sometimes years of work) digging for details (or even a single critical detail) in long-forgotten documents. Nobody becomes an expert by curling up in front of a TV screen or computer display with a bowl of popcorn.

Think about the background knowledge necessary to understand Titanic's breakup. Just a few of the areas a good researcher must be conversant in are: with steel ship construction, the properties of the materials (steel, iron, etc.) involved, vessel stability, permeability of compartments when flooding, the nature of buoyancy, the changing rate of ingress as a ship sinks, etc. Even the people with lots of letters after their names have not solved some of the biggest questions surrounding the breakup and sinking. And, while they do use computer simulations in their work, I'll guarantee they don't watch entertainments or computer games for knowledge.

Now, if one of you young whipper-snappers wold put my soap box away, I'd appreciate it.

-- David G. Brown
Curmudgeon-At-Large

 

[Harland Duzen]

Water was in beta testing when I came along, so I'm an old curmudgeon and right now I'm going to exercise the privileges of being a crusty old sailor.

Videos no matter how well crafted are simply somebody's (or a committee of somebodies') opinion about what happened. In no way should an animation or a reenactment on screen be confused with history any more than the set for Cameron's movie should be confused with the real ship. This may come as a shock, but real research takes work (sometimes years of work) digging for details (or even a single critical detail) in long-forgotten documents. Nobody becomes an expert by curling up in front of a TV screen or computer display with a bowl of popcorn.

Think about the background knowledge necessary to understand Titanic's breakup. Just a few of the areas a good researcher must be conversant in are: with steel ship construction, the properties of the materials (steel, iron, etc.) involved, vessel stability, permeability of compartments when flooding, the nature of buoyancy, the changing rate of ingress as a ship sinks, etc. Even the people with lots of letters after their names have not solved some of the biggest questions surrounding the breakup and sinking. And, while they do use computer simulations in their work, I'll guarantee they don't watch entertainments or computer games for knowledge.

Now, if one of you young whipper-snappers wold put my soap box away, I'd appreciate it.

-- David G. Brown
Curmudgeon-At-Large

Brilliant explantion David G. Brown, but in their defence, with Parks Stephenson, Bill Sauder and Ken Marshall to name a few working on the project, at least it's a informed opinion (and knowing Parks, properly already done the calculations!)

 

[Samuel Halpern]

My understanding is that to this very day there has not been one model-based simulation of the sinking that has the ship stay stable without capsizing well before the split. To make these simulations agree with observation require special adjustments to the simulation model that has no real physical basis except to make things come out right. In other words, the simulation models have to be fudged a bit because those who create them do not know enough to get it exactly right. And that is to be expected. There are also times when some of these experts simply get things wrong or have not dug deep enough into a certain subject which lead them to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

 

[Kyle Naber]

Brilliant explantion David G. Brown, but in their defence, with Parks Stephenson, Bill Sauder and Ken Marshall to name a few working on the project, at least it's a informed opinion (and knowing Parks, properly already done the calculations!)

Exactly. The producers have painstakingly researched the ship, getting every single little corner and crevice, and very, very rarely make guesses, and when they do guess, they're educated guesses that require comparison to many other ships of the time. They search through documents and testimony to find the precise design of the silverware, furnishings, and have made new discoveries about the windows in the first class dining room:



I don't think a lot of people realize that this will be the most accurate rendition of the Titanic and the sinking to date when it's released.

 

[Harland Duzen]

While not a an expert in video game design, building a 1:1 Scale of Titanic in a game engine with the incredible amount of detail would cause LAG (quoted by google: ''as is a noticeable delay between the action of players and the reaction of the server in a video game. The tolerance for lag depends heavily on the type of game.'') as the entire engine has to move every part of the ship by just a few inches.

This is also a problem when it comes to water mechanics where the game has to makes thousands or millions of microscopic spheres (making up water droplets) move independently of each other (see example below):



Naturally, to combine the two (Titanic Model and Millions of water droplets) would either lead to A) the game and computer crashing and getting damaged or B) the Titanic model being simplified and with less detail which would be conterdict the entire point of the game which is to show the immense ''Honor & Glory'' (excuse the pun) of the ship's construction and luxury.

This means they have to animate the sinking and some parts of the flooding to ensure the game is playable (thus why they also mentioned many cabins being locked in sinking mode so less assets and pieces is needed for the game to map in.

Sorry if this is not 100% accurate, but this is what the Titanic: Honor & Glory team have to put up with.

Back To Topic!

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

The producers have painstakingly researched the ship, getting every single little corner and crevice, and very, very rarely make guesses, and when they do guess, they're educated guesses that require comparison to many other ships of the time. They search through documents and testimony to find the precise design of the silverware, furnishings, and have made new discoveries

And several of it due to research and collection of other people!

this will be the most accurate rendition of the Titanic and the sinking to date when it's released.

Which ignores many accounts and still has several mistakes.

 

[Harland Duzen]

Which ignores many accounts and still has several mistakes.

Not wanting to start a argument here, but you will be able to follow 200+ passengers and Crew in the game AND no doubt, they still perfecting the sinking and any info left out. Don't forget the sinking video was just a small test released for fun.

 

[B-rad]

I believe that the THG team gets too much of a bad rap. I too do not agree with everything they have done, but that is based on my knowledge and my research, just as their objective opinions are made on theirs. I try not to say that someone should dismiss their own interpretation of facts presented to them, over my interpretation of the same facts. Instead I make it a critical thinking exercise. I tell the kids (or young adults...) at the college I work at, that instead of trying to prove yourself right, try proving yourself wrong.

As we are all aware of there are many, many alternate information in all aspects of the Titanic. One survivor said this, that survivor said that. Part of that survivor's story fits, while another part doesn't, so how much credit is the over all story? Then the construction of the ship or practices of the time, blows both stories out of the water. These are scenarios that leads to the questions that we all must ask, and we all must try to make sense of. As this website has shown me, and by its very nature -is why it exists, is that even some of the most respected names within the Titanic community do not agree on a lot of things, though there is also A LOT of common ground.

Original research I believe is the safest bet. Take what the experts say, and then go off and do your own research. My shining example (I'm being sarcastic mind you) was around when I first joined this site with info on the watertight door indicator. I kept reading that there is no evidence that one ever existed, and I found evidence that one did, and though that evidence is GREATLY flawed, and my excitement blinded me- and thankfully this community helped me understand my blindness- and I made claims that I no longer hold (for the most part), I am still proud that those claims were not made by any other means then that of original research. Mind you I am much more conscience now at crossing my T's and dotting my I's. But that's what being part of this community does, it sets a standard.

I myself would love to say that I would make a computer generated Titanic, but I can't even get myself to put together the paper model of the ship given to me years ago. The fact that there is someone out there doing what I've always thought would be cool to do, is awesome. The fact that they are doing it and I'm not, only makes it theirs, with their interpretation of the events. No one would agree 100% with any version I came up with either, so as for me, I'm just proud to see what they have done, and the fact that, if anything, they are getting people interested and talking, which hopefully will lead to more original research.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I believe that the THG team gets too much of a bad rap. I too do not agree with everything they have done, but that is based on my knowledge and my research, just as their objective opinions are made on theirs.

You have missed the behaviour and "research" of some of them on FB. And I will better stop here...

 

[Robert T. Paige]

At about 070:00 - 073:00 there seems to be a light low in the water - lower than the stars ? - off to port.
Could this have been intended to be Californian ? Or some other ship ? Or just a star low on the horizon ?

 

[Kyle Naber]

At about 070:00 - 073:00 there seems to be a light low in the water - lower than the stars ? - off to port.
Could this have been intended to be Californian ? Or some other ship ? Or just a star low on the horizon ?

In which video? I assume to mean this light? This is supposed to be the Californian:

 

[Harland Duzen]

At about 070:00 - 073:00 there seems to be a light low in the water - lower than the stars ? - off to port.
Could this have been intended to be Californian ? Or some other ship ? Or just a star low on the horizon ?

In which video? I assume to mean this light? This is supposed to be the Californian:

View attachment 3380

The light is indeed meant to be the SS Californian and in other parts of the video, you can see her side lights. Finally, I glad to say they have expressed their opinions of Lord being innocent.

 

[Harland Duzen]

I believe that the THG team gets too much of a bad rap. I too do not agree with everything they have done, but that is based on my knowledge and my research, just as their objective opinions are made on theirs. I try not to say that someone should dismiss their own interpretation of facts presented to them, over my interpretation of the same facts. Instead I make it a critical thinking exercise. I tell the kids (or young adults...) at the college I work at, that instead of trying to prove yourself right, try proving yourself wrong.

As we are all aware of there are many, many alternate information in all aspects of the Titanic. One survivor said this, that survivor said that. Part of that survivor's story fits, while another part doesn't, so how much credit is the over all story? Then the construction of the ship or practices of the time, blows both stories out of the water. These are scenarios that leads to the questions that we all must ask, and we all must try to make sense of. As this website has shown me, and by its very nature -is why it exists, is that even some of the most respected names within the Titanic community do not agree on a lot of things, though there is also A LOT of common ground.

Original research I believe is the safest bet. Take what the experts say, and then go off and do your own research. My shining example (I'm being sarcastic mind you) was around when I first joined this site with info on the watertight door indicator. I kept reading that there is no evidence that one ever existed, and I found evidence that one did, and though that evidence is GREATLY flawed, and my excitement blinded me- and thankfully this community helped me understand my blindness- and I made claims that I no longer hold (for the most part), I am still proud that those claims were not made by any other means then that of original research. Mind you I am much more conscience now at crossing my T's and dotting my I's. But that's what being part of this community does, it sets a standard.

I myself would love to say that I would make a computer generated Titanic, but I can't even get myself to put together the paper model of the ship given to me years ago. The fact that there is someone out there doing what I've always thought would be cool to do, is awesome. The fact that they are doing it and I'm not, only makes it theirs, with their interpretation of the events. No one would agree 100% with any version I came up with either, so as for me, I'm just proud to see what they have done, and the fact that, if anything, they are getting people interested and talking, which hopefully will lead to more original research.

Off Topic, but this is the best worded response ever. Also your quote: ''Instead of trying to prove yourself right, try proving yourself wrong'' I'm going to adopt as a motto.

Back To Topic!

 

[David G. Brown]

Interesting discussion, particularly the comments by Sam about the problems encountered with simulating the ship's sinking.

It was not my point to say that there is not research behind many, or even all of the various simulations. The trouble is that no matter how well done a simulation is still only a simulation. It is not reality. At best, a simulation demonstrates in graphic terms ideas and concepts which are difficult to explain in words. For example, stress analysis simulations have taught a lot about what took inside the hull girder.

But, in the end a simulation is no more accurate that the data used to create it. Even the best is no more than an opinion presented in living color using images that are the product of human imaginaton.

My concern is that people, especially those who arrived after the millennium are losing the ability to do original research. They prefer watching dazzling videos on hand-held devices. I get that. It is exciting to watch Titanic sink in the palm of your hand. But, at the same time, the lax education they are receiving does not teach the difference between good research and 4-K video. The combined result is a short-circuiting of the reasoning process. This isn't a problem with something on the periphery of importance like Titanic. I just worry about what happens to a society that values pretty pictures over hard facts and reasoned debate.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Harland Duzen]

Interesting discussion, particularly the comments by Sam about the problems encountered with simulating the ship's sinking.

It was not my point to say that there is not research behind many, or even all of the various simulations. The trouble is that no matter how well done a simulation is still only a simulation. It is not reality. At best, a simulation demonstrates in graphic terms ideas and concepts which are difficult to explain in words. For example, stress analysis simulations have taught a lot about what took inside the hull girder.

But, in the end a simulation is no more accurate that the data used to create it. Even the best is no more than an opinion presented in living color using images that are the product of human imaginaton.

My concern is that people, especially those who arrived after the millennium are losing the ability to do original research. They prefer watching dazzling videos on hand-held devices. I get that. It is exciting to watch Titanic sink in the palm of your hand. But, at the same time, the lax education they are receiving does not teach the difference between good research and 4-K video. The combined result is a short-circuiting of the reasoning process. This isn't a problem with something on the periphery of importance like Titanic. I just worry about what happens to a society that values pretty pictures over hard facts and reasoned debate.

-- David G. Brown

What we need to do as I keep repeating is build a large scale model of Titanic (say 1:12 scale) with the same materials and dimensions and then sink it to see what happens. Only with a real model, do I believe we get an accurate result.

A good example of this is the UK Channel 4 Show: ''Secrets Of The Dead, What Sank The Mary Rose?'' where a scale model of the infamous warship was built and weighted to test what could have sank her.

They found using the model and an Air-fan that the combination of extra cannons added during her refit and open gun-ports led to water pouring into the hull though them during a Hard-A Starboard turn to avoid a sandbank and french enemy fire. The model proved / solved what the causes of the sinking were AND ending up mirroring exactly what witness testimony described the sinking and the Cowdrey Engraving image of the sunken wreck.


(Watch 41:40 - 49:18 Thank You.)

Back To Topic!