Samuel Halpern
Member
What you see in that video is a vessel approaching at a slight angle that clearly swung to starboard (to the right) moments before her bow struck the starboard side quay.
Why didn't Titanic see Californian's Morse Lamps?
- Thread starter Michael F. Koch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- californian
Samuel Halpern
Member
A south setting current is the only viable explanation for the wreckage being seen 10 miles south of the wreck site at 9 in the morning. Amongst that wreckage was overturned collapsible B.
Jim Currie
Member
Yes that's true, but if you care to look closely, you will see the Captain or Pilot on the starboard wing of the bridge. Keep watching him.
The ship is obviously under port helm. She seems to those on the bridge to be coming round nicely and being lined-up for a smooth entry.; her starboard side is closing with the quay wall.
Suddenly, at 1 minute 29 seconds into the video, her right shoulder contacts the quay wall. What is the effect on the person on the bridge? Before this moment, he was moving with the ship to the left hand side of the screen; suddenly he moves in the opposite direction...to the right and away from the quay. Instead of the angle between the quay decreasing, it increases for another 38 seconds until the bow comes round to port and the contact with the starboard side is broken. Meantime, the bow was crushing the 'Mule' at the bottom of the ramp
Are you telling me and everyone else on here that when Titanic contacted that iceberg, it had absolutely no effect on her forward progress or her orientation?
Your position for the debris is based on the evidence of Captain Lord " The position where I left the wreckage was 41º 33' N., 50° 1' W.". and ' Can you give us your noon observations? A: - Yes; 41.33 N. and 50.9 W.
Tell me something. Sam; why break a habit of a "Titanic Lifetime"? Why accept Lord's position in this instance yet deny it when considering his 10-21pm position the previous evening?
In fact, the position of the south extremity did not change over the 24 hours covering the disaster. Additionally, every vessel in that area including the Carpathia and Mount Temple would have been seriously affected by a 1.4 knot south setting a current. More to the point, there is no way on God's green acres you, or anyone else including the mighty Hichens could have turned the ever slowing Titanic's bows through that current. Even if such a miracle did happen... what do you think would most certainly happen to the ship's orientation when she finally stopped? I think you should go back to the drawing board, Sam.
Aaron_2016
Guest
There was a noticeable current when the lifeboats approached the Carpathia and the wind picked up. They even took advantage of the sail and you can see the angle of the mast is considerable on the left photo as the wind pushed against it.
This could also explain why the lifeboats could not make much headway when they tried to row towards the ship that was northwards as the currents were forcing them back. e.g.
3rd officer Pitman
Q - You had not been rowing very much?
A - No; we had been drifting with a little wind.
Q - And there was not very much wind?
A - No; we got a little wind at 4 o'clock, a little breeze at 4 o'clock
This could also explain why the lifeboats could not make much headway when they tried to row towards the ship that was northwards as the currents were forcing them back. e.g.
3rd officer Pitman
Q - You had not been rowing very much?
A - No; we had been drifting with a little wind.
Q - And there was not very much wind?
A - No; we got a little wind at 4 o'clock, a little breeze at 4 o'clock
Last edited by a moderator:
Samuel Halpern
Member
Because her noontime position on the 15th was supported by Frankfurt sighting of her at noon coming out of the icefield. Frankfurt's noon position supports the position of Californian at that time.
Jim Currie
Member
Ok! Accepted. So we agree that Lord's navigation was pretty good. Now let's look at that evidence.
If there had been a south setting current of the magnitude of 1.4 knots, apart from it's detrimental effect on the turning Titanic (which you studiously ignore), it would have seriously affected the movement of every vessel in that area; not the least being the Carpathia Yet not one single master reports its presence and instead of being set to the southward of her intended course, Carpathia was set well to the east and north of it.
Additionally, according to the ice reports of vessels in the area, the southern end of it doe not seem to have moved any farther south before,during and after the disaster. Captain Lord makes mention of where it was as he searched for survivors. He stated that he made a wipe sweep (circle) to the south for about 10 miles to clear water then came back round the the place where he had left the wreckage.
Lord said he left the scene at 11 0'clock then at 11-20 am that morning. His 3rd officer said they left the scene at 10-40 am. I suggest to you that both men are correct but Lord mixed up the time when he cleared the heavy ice with when he actually left the scene. Californian must have made a wide sweep to the south and east looking for survivors. Therefore she made a sort of semi-circle rather that a circle.
Besides the foregoing, they have learned since 1912 that the Gulf Steam is a very deep body of water, reaching to the sea bed in places. There is no way that a body of cold water such as the Labrador Current would have flowed over or under that warm water
If there had been a south setting current of the magnitude of 1.4 knots, apart from it's detrimental effect on the turning Titanic (which you studiously ignore), it would have seriously affected the movement of every vessel in that area; not the least being the Carpathia Yet not one single master reports its presence and instead of being set to the southward of her intended course, Carpathia was set well to the east and north of it.
Additionally, according to the ice reports of vessels in the area, the southern end of it doe not seem to have moved any farther south before,during and after the disaster. Captain Lord makes mention of where it was as he searched for survivors. He stated that he made a wipe sweep (circle) to the south for about 10 miles to clear water then came back round the the place where he had left the wreckage.
Lord said he left the scene at 11 0'clock then at 11-20 am that morning. His 3rd officer said they left the scene at 10-40 am. I suggest to you that both men are correct but Lord mixed up the time when he cleared the heavy ice with when he actually left the scene. Californian must have made a wide sweep to the south and east looking for survivors. Therefore she made a sort of semi-circle rather that a circle.
Besides the foregoing, they have learned since 1912 that the Gulf Steam is a very deep body of water, reaching to the sea bed in places. There is no way that a body of cold water such as the Labrador Current would have flowed over or under that warm water
Jim Currie
Member
You are closer to the truth than you think, Aaron. The wind got up just before 4 am and freshened from the North. By the time the last boat was recovered, there was quite a chop on the water. That wind would generate a little surface current but nothing close to 1.4 knots... more like 0.1 knots if that. If there had been a 1.4 knot current running from the north, it would have tended to 'flatten' any wavelets.
Your photograph seems to show 5th Officer Lowe with sail set and towing a vessel behind him. In the first, he is running free with the wind; in the second he has spilled the sail and is in the act of lowering it. These two boats are heading southward toward Carpathia.
Any attempt to row one of those heavy wooden boats against a current by 2 or 3 inexperienced rowers would have resulted in the boats going backwards.
By the same token, if there had been a southward setting current. Titanic, in her condition after impact, could not have turned to the right, against it. The same goes for any ship stopped but lying with her bow pointing NNW. Any south setting current would push the bow back toward the south.
As for the Californian: if there had been a south setting current when Captain Lord swung her away from the ice to point NE, she would have continued swinging round until she was pointing eastward then remained in that position with her port side facing north, broadside to the current. She would no longer have swung through South and kept her green light showing all the time to the nearby ship. Sam knows this. Check it out with him.
Samuel Halpern
Member
The ship was floating on a body of water. The total movement of the ship would be its movement relative to the water plus the movement of the body of water. It would be the sum of the vectors. This is no different than an airplane flying through the air that itself is moving relative to the ground below. Flying cross wind is no different than flying up wind or down wind. What is different is the track over ground. If a ship is stopped dead in the water, then the only movement it has (relative to the sea bed) is the movement of the water. If that water movement is uniformly the same over the entire area of the vessel, then the ship will face whatever direction it came to a stop in unless influence by whatever wind there may be.
Aaron_2016
Guest
They discovered a very long trail of coal running south of the stern for almost a mile southwards or SSW. Does this prove there was a current running which caused the coal to drift southwards? The documentary which examined this (I think it was Achilles Heel) said the stern might have been afloat for some time after she broke which allowed the coal to spill out and drift southwards.
It is common belief that the stern sank almost over the spot where the ship broke on the surface. The bow is a considerable distance north which implies it dived forwards as it descended.
.
Jim Currie
Member
I can't believe you actually wrote that.
That sounds great and terribly learned Sam and would be absolutely correct if we all lived in a vacuum but we don't. In practice it just does not happen to an irregular shaped floating object with corresponding irregularly shaped superstructure travelling through the air. It most certainly does not happen to a ship. Ask anyone who's ship has suddenly had the misfortune to be NUC (Not Under Command) in a tideway or strong current like the one your trying to push on this site.
Let's consider what I wrote to Aaron concerning the Californian.
If as you insist:
,"If a ship is stopped dead in the water, then the only movement it has (relative to the sea bed) is the movement of the water. If that water movement is uniformly the same over the entire area of the vessel, then the ship will face whatever direction it came to a stop in unless influence by whatever wind there may be".
Then how do you explain the slow but steady clockwise ritation of the Californian fron 10-21 pm April 14 until about 4 am April 15? I know why she stopped that swing and it wasn't anything to do with a south setting current.. do you?
Incidently, when Californian was pointing toward ther nearby vessel, how was it possible for her stern to continue turning northward against a south setting current?
Jim Currie
Member
Hello Aaron.
What you are seeing on the sea bed is called 'scour' and is very common in shallow water, It shows a prevailng bottom curren. However, the specific gravity of dry coal is just a little higher that that of sea water. Coal and relative 'light' materials escaping from the open end of the hull as the ship spiralled down would be scattered in a wide arc.
If Titanic's hull broke just forward the the main engine room than only the bunkers in Boiler room 1 would be open to the sea. The only way coal could have escaped from the hull would have been if the doublle bottoms below successive boiler room were torn away at the surface or on the way down. Once the forward section pancaked on the bottom, it would gain a new 'bottom' in the sahape of the sea bed.
A mile long by 3 feet wide and 1 foor thick trail of coal would represent 18, 240 cubic feet of antracite coal. At an average of 55 lbs /cu. ft. that equates to almost 450 tons. If coal issued from the open end of the stern section as it descended and that section went down at an unerring angle then the section was moving down and to the north while the coal steamed out of it to the southward.
Samuel Halpern
Member
You are correct about the direction. It was SSW from the stern section and boiler field. The coal streak was not from the bunkers:
"We took a few samples of coal from the debris trail and they turned out to be coke from the kitchens. The samples were returned to the bottom after they were tested. The pieces of coal vary in size, but they get smaller as the trail gets further away from the wreck site. "
Most likely this coal spilled out at the time the ship split apart. Smaller pieces (by weighty) would reach a terminal velocity sooner than the larger pieces. Thus, the time to reach the sea bed would take longer for the smaller pieces. What this shows is that the underwater currents were running southward. The bow section managed to go northward as it sank, and it is facing about NNE on the sea bed.
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
If I remember right there was also mention of some "light" debris among the coal at the SSW direction.
Jim Currie
Member
Sea bed currents, Sam. The best source of in formation concerning these is from Hydrocarbon exploration companies. I don't know if you are familiar with the term BOP Stack? If not, it refers to a Blow-out Preventer. This is a considerable structure which is located on top of sub sea well-head. They are fitted with remote CCTV equipment and are constantly monitored. Obviously, bottom current monitoring is extremely important. Bottom scour can cause valuable equipment to be buried and lost. I was involved with the recovery of one of these 60 feet high monsters from a dept of 2000 feet the Ionian Sea off southern Italy. What you see in Aaron's photograph is a classic example of bottom current. At such great depths, it bears little or no similkarity to the medium and shallow depth currents.
The two sinking parts of Titanic and all the bits and pieces breaking off them as she sank would be effected in different ways by the density of each object, the shape of each object and thus the drag component and the presence of the three main thermal layers of the ocean. Consequently I doubt very much if there is anyone who can say for sure what the sinking processes of each bit was.
I have a question.
If the coal we see in the photograph was from Boiler Room 1, why do we not see it issuing from the south end of the bow section where it was originally located? How was it possible for it to issue from the section containing the main engines? Am I missing something here?
Aaron_2016
Guest
If the keel broke open on the surface then whatever coal was in that compartment would surely spill out long before both sections separated on the surface and sank. Frank Osman saw lumps of coal shooting out of the funnels during the break up and I'm guessing there must have been an enormous release of coal somewhere in the vicinity of the break up.
.
