What happened to the Forward Tower?

[Aaron_2016]

The keel is there, there had been done a sonar scan in 1996. The results had been published and are available.
Cameron was on E Deck at the uptakes of the boiler rooms, no sign of explosion or any other kind. So it is all speculation on your part.

I mean the keel underneath the entire bow section. We have no idea if there is anything underneath boiler rooms 3 or 4. The keel could have partially buckled or breached underneath and the bow could be resting on the broken pieces or the damage could be masked by the damage suffered when the bow struck the sea floor. We simply don't know.

So then why did the engines and boilers did not fall out of the hull especially with your "V" break claim? The forward engines you claim did fall out due to the port list, so why not all the engines? Your claim does not make sense. And because you have not seen or know where to look it does not mean that "we don't know" it is more you don't know.

We don't have a monopoly on the truth. The claim that the ship broke in a V position is not mine. I am reading what a number of survivors claimed and since none of us were there we have to take every claim by every survivor as serious and we need to look at every possibility that would result in the ship sinking in the same manner they witnessed her sink to determine how she sank in the manner 'they witnessed it' and to incorporate every element that would make it possible, rather than dismissing their claims.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I mean the keel underneath the entire bow section. We have no idea if there is anything underneath boiler rooms 3 or 4. The keel could have partially buckled or breached underneath and the bow could be resting on the broken pieces or the damage could be masked by the damage suffered when the bow struck the sea floor. We simply don't know..

As already stated it had been done a sonar scan and the results had been published in the sname report.

 

[Seungho Kang]

Speaking of Roy Mengot and engines, here's his diagram of the break area.
http://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Tear_Profile.jpg

Unlike the forward double bottom, the aft double bottom has a piece of the base of the engines, and at the top, there is a section of the reciprocating engine on top of it.
This is why I support that the double bottom broke like a W. Shortly after the first explosion, the bow would bodily go down for a moment, bending the forward keel downwards. Then as the ship sink towards the center, it would buckle the aft keel upwards, giving enough force to the forward reciprocating engine to break away from the rest.

As Aaron mentioned about the curvatures of the double bottom pieces, I think that was the effect of the double bottom bending the other way, since it isn't simply bended downwards, but an "S" shape. And bending a double-sided material such as cardboard to an A shape would much likely to create that kind of bend, rather than a V.

After the bow went straight down and the stern righting itself, the boilers would one by one fall out of the stern by its port side break area, making the "bobbing" effect.
The forward reciprocating engine would fall out after the boilers gave way.

I don't think a classic top-down breakup would explain how the double bottom split into 2 parts.

 

[Kyle Naber]

I don't think a classic top-down breakup would explain how the double bottom split into 2 parts.

There is evidence that supports this. The 2012 study confirmed that the double bottom would have bent upwards before any decks broke apart.

 

[marina_irc]

It is the only available forensics within the public's view. I have not seen photos or footage of a number of boiler rooms to determine what may have occurred inside and what state the walls and doors are in, or if the keel underneath parts of the bow sections are even there. Without that evidence the physical forensics are still not available, and so any conclusions made can not be based on factual evidence, but mere speculation.




I have not seen any evidence which shows the forward machinery that was located above the broken double bottom were mounted down in place, or if the weight alone held them in place. It was a common belief back in 1912 that the engines, boilers, and machinery 'broke lose from their seatings' and crashed through the ship. I have seen no evidence which confirms or denies what they speculated to be true or not, and therefore no certainty can be obtained regarding how she buckled open and broke.


.

Uhh, the seatings are massive metal bolted retaining structures. The engines would have vibrated out of true with the shafts if they hadn't been bolted down!

 

[marina_irc]

Speaking of Roy Mengot and engines, here's his diagram of the break area.
http://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Tear_Profile.jpg

Unlike the forward double bottom, the aft double bottom has a piece of the base of the engines, and at the top, there is a section of the reciprocating engine on top of it.
This is why I support that the double bottom broke like a W. Shortly after the first explosion, the bow would bodily go down for a moment, bending the forward keel downwards. Then as the ship sink towards the center, it would buckle the aft keel upwards, giving enough force to the forward reciprocating engine to break away from the rest.

As Aaron mentioned about the curvatures of the double bottom pieces, I think that was the effect of the double bottom bending the other way, since it isn't simply bended downwards, but an "S" shape. And bending a double-sided material such as cardboard to an A shape would much likely to create that kind of bend, rather than a V.

After the bow went straight down and the stern righting itself, the boilers would one by one fall out of the stern by its port side break area, making the "bobbing" effect.
The forward reciprocating engine would fall out after the boilers gave way.

I don't think a classic top-down breakup would explain how the double bottom split into 2 parts.

Yes, it would, because the imposed stress varies across the double bottom as a function of weight. And, again, the double bottom failed in tension because of macroscopic crack propagation.

 

[marina_irc]

An by the way Roy Mengot gave a good explanation with forensic analysis of the wreckage (and that break up fit well with several eyewitness accounts).

Breakup

This is actually an incredibly good article which provides a strong argument for failure to initiate at the keel after all ... Not the strength deck.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Uhh, the seatings are massive metal bolted retaining structures. The engines would have vibrated out of true with the shafts if they hadn't been bolted down!

I meant to say that the bolts that secured the heavy machinery might not have been sufficiently strong enough to keep them bolted down in place when the ship listed heavily to port with the weight of them leaning over. The boilers fell out when the ship broke which indicates that they were not bolted down, and part of the forward main engines fell out when the double bottom broke off which indicates that they were not bolted down to the double bottom pieces. They would have had foundation seatings (possibly like a brace) which held them in place, but when the ship leaned over heavily to port they might have broken loose from their seatings and crashed through the side of the ship. There has been much talk of weak rivets and slag in the metal. Perhaps the bolts were weaker than normal owing to the amount of slag in them which caused the engines and boilers to break lose from their seatings and crash through the side of the ship e.g.

Survivor Percy Keen:
"It appeared to us that when the ship listed heavily to port the engines fell out and crashed through the side."


.

 

[marina_irc]

To evaluate that hypothesis you need to know the number and rating of the bolts and their position on the engine bed. BTW, this is a lot less force than you think because it's a function of the moment arm of the engine... Which by definition is produced by the ship's trim at the head. Your slight list to the side would not cause it.... Anything which would overstress these bolts would have capsized the ship. The engines probably actually only came off when the tanks imploded, which would have wrecked their bases.

 

[Aaron_2016]

I believe the port list was far worse than the downward tilt which in comparison was negligible compared to the list to port. This would put great pressure and stress on one side of the ship. The broken ends of the wreck show signs that the starboard side pulled apart and the port side compressed together e.g.

Various accounts detailing the list to port.

Harold Bride
"There was a heavy list to port."

Mr. Ismay
"The ship had quite a list to port."

Mr. Thayer
"The list to the port had been growing greater all the time."

Mr Hardy
"The ship was then at a heavy list to port."

Mr. Mellors
"At this time it was almost impossible to walk on the deck without you having caught hold of something owing to the ship heeling right over."

Colonel Archibald Gracie
"There was a very palpable list to port as if the ship was about to topple over."

2nd officer Charles Lightoller
"She had a pretty heavy list to port."

Mr. William (spoke to Author Walter Lord and his notes said)
"Bad list to port side now, and he and father have difficult making it 'uphill' to starboard side. Finally reach gym.....He and father get on bicycles and pedal around to get warmer. List makes it too difficult for father, so they restlessly wander back on deck. Must be 2:10 now. Band playing lively music."

Edward Brown
"The ship had a list to port"
Q - At the time that she put the bridge under water was the list considerable?
A - Yes.

Charles Joughin
"I did not notice her being much down by the head."
Q - Do you mean that the list to port was more serious than being down by the head?
A - I thought so, yes.
"She was not far out of the water at any stage that I saw."
Q - So that to say that she stood up like that (showing) would be wrong?
A - It would be absolutely wrong.

Mr. Pearcey
Q - Did you notice when you rowed away whether the ship had any list?
A - Yes, the ship had a list on her port side.
Q - Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
A - No, I did not notice.
Q - Did you notice whether she appeared to be going deeper into the water forward? Did you notice that?
A - No.
Q - Did you see the vessel go down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were you facing her when she went down?
A - Yes.

Mrs. Ryerson (in a port side lifeboat)
Q - Did you notice anything about the portholes in the side of the ship?
A - Yes, a great many were open.
Q - At the time your boat was lowered the water was washing in the portholes of the C deck?
A - Yes.
Q - On that side?
A - On the side she sank, that is the port side.

I believe the list to port would have resembled these pictures taken aboard the 'Vestris' when she listed badly to starboard and went down in 1928.

Mr. Keene
"It appeared to us that when the ship had listed heavily to port the engines fell out and crashed through the side."

 

[Kyle Naber]

I believe the list to port would have resembled these pictures taken aboard the 'Vestris' shortly before she went down in 1928.

Maybe at 2:18am...

The port list was more noticeable due to the fact that it was acquired much more quickly than the downward tilt, not because it was more severe.

 

[Rancor]

I believe the port list was far worse than the downward tilt which in comparison was negligible compared to the list to port. This would put great pressure and stress on one side of the ship. The broken ends of the wreck show signs that the starboard side pulled apart and the port side compressed together e.g.

Various accounts detailing the list to port.



Harold Bride
"There was a heavy list to port."


Mr. Ismay
"The ship had quite a list to port."


Mr. Thayer
"The list to the port had been growing greater all the time."


Mr Hardy
"The ship was then at a heavy list to port."


Mr. Mellors
"At this time it was almost impossible to walk on the deck without you having caught hold of something owing to the ship heeling right over."


Colonel Archibald Gracie
"There was a very palpable list to port as if the ship was about to topple over."


2nd officer Charles Lightoller
"She had a pretty heavy list to port."


Mr. William (spoke to Author Walter Lord and his notes said)
"Bad list to port side now, and he and father have difficult making it 'uphill' to starboard side. Finally reach gym.....He and father get on bicycles and pedal around to get warmer. List makes it too difficult for father, so they restlessly wander back on deck. Must be 2:10 now. Band playing lively music."


Edward Brown
"The ship had a list to port"
Q - At the time that she put the bridge under water was the list considerable?
A - Yes.


Charles Joughin
"I did not notice her being much down by the head."
Q - Do you mean that the list to port was more serious than being down by the head?
A - I thought so, yes.
"She was not far out of the water at any stage that I saw."
Q - So that to say that she stood up like that (showing) would be wrong?
A - It would be absolutely wrong.


Mr. Pearcey
Q - Did you notice when you rowed away whether the ship had any list?
A - Yes, the ship had a list on her port side.
Q - Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
A - No, I did not notice.
Q - Did you notice whether she appeared to be going deeper into the water forward? Did you notice that?
A - No.
Q - Did you see the vessel go down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were you facing her when she went down?
A - Yes.


Mrs. Ryerson (in a port side lifeboat)
Q - Did you notice anything about the portholes in the side of the ship?
A - Yes, a great many were open.
Q - At the time your boat was lowered the water was washing in the portholes of the C deck?
A - Yes.
Q - On that side?
A - On the side she sank, that is the port side.



I believe the list to port would have resembled these pictures taken aboard the 'Vestris' when she listed badly to starboard and went down in 1928.

Mr. Keene
"It appeared to us that when the ship had listed heavily to port the engines fell out and crashed through the side."


.

Interesting in those images of the engine room I can see what you mean with your suggestion of the tear away to port of the hull, but the reversing valve control rods on the engines seem to be bent forward and down, indicating that the forward LP cylinders tipped downwards instead of out the side?

 

[Aaron_2016]

Interesting in those images of the engine room I can see what you mean with your suggestion of the tear away to port of the hull, but the reversing valve control rods on the engines seem to be bent forward and down, indicating that the forward LP cylinders tipped downwards instead of out the side?

I believe there could be several possibilities which could explain the downward bending of the pipes.

When the double bottom buckled, the forward engines would lose their foundations and possibly crashed straight down and accelerated the break up.

Footprint of the starboard engine which indicates the engine pushed down as it fell through.

When the ship listed heavily to port, the double bottom might have buckled and tore open from the starboard side across to port side in a long tear which compressed the port side of the flooring into itself.

The stern turns around and in the process breaks into three. The engines are losing their foundations but remain hanging onto the rest of the machinery and the survivors see the lights are still burning as she breaks open.

The forward engines lose their remaining seating, but remain connected to the rest of the machinery and the weight tilts the broken stern into the air with lights blazing as the ship pivots around on her side. The forward engines finally let go and crash down, bending the pipes down and the stern settles back again.

Then again, the pipes could have bent downwards when the stern imploded, or maybe the stern compressed into the middle tower debris which pushed the pipes inwards, or the collision with the sea floor and downward rush of water bent the pipes down in the same manner that the decks of the bow were bent downwards, or possibly the weight of the pipes bent downwards during many years of gradual deterioration.

Another possibility is that if the stern descended towards the sea floor in a vertical direction downwards and imploded, the pressure pushing up against the forward stern may have bent the pipes downwards?

e.g.

But I think the most likely scenario is that the double bottom buckled open and the engines crashed through as the stern twisted and turned around and the engines lost their footing and dropped down.



.

 

[marina_irc]

I believe the port list was far worse than the downward tilt which in comparison was negligible compared to the list to port. This would put great pressure and stress on one side of the ship. The broken ends of the wreck show signs that the starboard side pulled apart and the port side compressed together e.g.

Various accounts detailing the list to port.

Harold Bride
"There was a heavy list to port."

Mr. Ismay
"The ship had quite a list to port."

Mr. Thayer
"The list to the port had been growing greater all the time."

Mr Hardy
"The ship was then at a heavy list to port."

Mr. Mellors
"At this time it was almost impossible to walk on the deck without you having caught hold of something owing to the ship heeling right over."

Colonel Archibald Gracie
"There was a very palpable list to port as if the ship was about to topple over."

2nd officer Charles Lightoller
"She had a pretty heavy list to port."

Mr. William (spoke to Author Walter Lord and his notes said)
"Bad list to port side now, and he and father have difficult making it 'uphill' to starboard side. Finally reach gym.....He and father get on bicycles and pedal around to get warmer. List makes it too difficult for father, so they restlessly wander back on deck. Must be 2:10 now. Band playing lively music."

Edward Brown
"The ship had a list to port"
Q - At the time that she put the bridge under water was the list considerable?
A - Yes.

Charles Joughin
"I did not notice her being much down by the head."
Q - Do you mean that the list to port was more serious than being down by the head?
A - I thought so, yes.
"She was not far out of the water at any stage that I saw."
Q - So that to say that she stood up like that (showing) would be wrong?
A - It would be absolutely wrong.

Mr. Pearcey
Q - Did you notice when you rowed away whether the ship had any list?
A - Yes, the ship had a list on her port side.
Q - Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
A - No, I did not notice.
Q - Did you notice whether she appeared to be going deeper into the water forward? Did you notice that?
A - No.
Q - Did you see the vessel go down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were you facing her when she went down?
A - Yes.

Mrs. Ryerson (in a port side lifeboat)
Q - Did you notice anything about the portholes in the side of the ship?
A - Yes, a great many were open.
Q - At the time your boat was lowered the water was washing in the portholes of the C deck?
A - Yes.
Q - On that side?
A - On the side she sank, that is the port side.

I believe the list to port would have resembled these pictures taken aboard the 'Vestris' when she listed badly to starboard and went down in 1928.

Mr. Keene
"It appeared to us that when the ship had listed heavily to port the engines fell out and crashed through the side."

Unfortunately you are wrong. An extreme list on a ship can be as little as 15-20 degrees, which would leave the moment arm of the engine at around only 25pct of its weight. In most materials the ratio of ultimate shear to ultimate tensile stress is 0.6 so the engine beds would have a 233pct factor of safety at a 15 degree list. (Assuming that the bolts had NO factor of safety in ultimate tensile strength, when an FS of eight was common in Victorian engineering--which would give an FS of 18 in shear at 15 degrees list). Your theory is not supported by science.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Your theory is not supported by science.

But you have theorised that the port list was just 15-20 degrees. We have no evidence that it was, so your theory is not support by science either. I believe the port list was extreme. We can't prove it one way or another, but it could have been 40 degrees or more when the stern broke and rolled over sideways and Charles Joughin had to climb onto the side of the ship.


Rough idea.

.