[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

Moot point on a moonless night which made it very difficult - if not impossible, to see any water hazards let alone enable ambient conditions to permit for an early warning.

No radar obviously but then why no long range arc lights were fitted which they had the tech for at the time which would have been be used on the moonless night with iceberg warnings aplenty.
If two searchlights were fitted above say the bridge with an arc of around 25-30 degrees there was a very good chance of spotting an iceberg as far as five miles away.

[Tambohamilton]

You've heard the theory about the mirage, right?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

You've heard the theory about the mirage, right?

One at a time mate let's not jump the gun, we'll come to that.

[Tambohamilton]

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the schedule...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

In conclusion then the ship may have survived the iceberg hit with minimal damage if the hull metal was not weakened by the out of control coal fire which raged for 3 weeks. Expert says it may have weakened the strike area by as much as 75%.

I would think that cold North Sea ocean water would act as an excellent heat sink and draw any damaging level of heat out from the steel hull. The laws of Thermodynamics being what they are.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I would think that cold North Sea ocean water would act as an excellent heat sink and draw any damaging level of heat out from the steel hull. The laws of Thermodynamics being what they are.

The damage was already done in still warmer waters from first stoking up the boilers and the coal around them catching fire.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

No radar obviously but then why no long range arc lights were fitted which they had the tech for at the time which would have been be used on the moonless night with iceberg warnings aplenty.
If two searchlights were fitted above say the bridge with an arc of around 25-30 degrees there was a very good chance of spotting an iceberg as far as five miles away.

Because White Star was clearly more focused on luxury amenities than safety.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

Because White Star was clearly more focused on luxury amenities than safety.

Undoubtedly and cutting down on the lifeboat numbers to just 16 boats and four collapsibles which would not be enough for all of the disembarking passengers.
White Star decided the original 32 boats would clutter the decks too much and look ungainly, also a lifeboat lowering and training drill was cancelled by Smith as he thought it was a waste of time.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

The damage was already done in still warmer waters from first stoking up the boilers and the coal around them catching fire.

The ship sank some hundred years ago. It's an interesting story that is immaterial
to the 21st century. But if there was coal burning in the coal stores, where did the emissions go? Coal is not very clean burning. I doubt there would be liveable conditions below deck to operate the power train.

The ocean around Irealand is a good heat sink too.

Anyway, have fun with the conspiracy

[M5Rick]

A three storey high coal store behind one of the boilers was on fire, a team of 12 men tried to put it out but was impossible with temperatures reaching 1000 centigrade, so when Titanic struck ice on that specific area it tore open the ships lining much more than it would have if there had been no metal weakening. The fire was raging even before the ship left Belfast.

[stocktree]

Was the ships engines disabled after the hit? Would have been nice to back up and offload people onto the iceberg.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by stocktree

Was the ships engines disabled after the hit? Would have been nice to back up and offload people onto the iceberg.

By the time Titanic stopped it was a distance from the iceberg, even putting the screw propellers into reverse took a while to stop the 52 thousand ton ship and I doubt passengers could clamber aboard the iceberg because of the slippery sloping sides.
The engines worked but every time the ship would move it for sure would expedite the flooding.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The ship sank some hundred years ago. It's an interesting story that is immaterial
to the 21st century. But if there was coal burning in the coal stores, where did the emissions go? Coal is not very clean burning. I doubt there would be liveable conditions below deck to operate the power train.

The ocean around Irealand is a good heat sink too.

Anyway, have fun with the conspiracy

Titanic was a one inch thick single plate ship unlike the double plated ones built later and the burning coal was next to the wall of the ship weakening the superstructure cold water or not.

[stocktree]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

By the time Titanic stopped it was a distance from the iceberg, even putting the screw propellers into reverse took a while to stop the 52 thousand ton ship and I doubt passengers could clamber aboard the iceberg because of the slippery sloping sides.
The engines worked but every time the ship would move it for sure would expedite the flooding.

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Titanic was a one inch thick single plate ship unlike the double plated ones built later and the burning coal was next to the wall of the ship weakening the superstructure cold water or not.

If there was a fire next to the steel, while in cold water, that steel would have never heated up.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by stocktree

If there was a fire next to the steel, while in cold water, that steel would have never heated up.

This is where it gets interesting, the fire started when the ship was light displacement LWT,without passengers, cargo,supplies equipment etc so waterline was above water level heating up bad and already metal affected before full Deadweight tonnage DWT and under water setting sail for NYC.

[stocktree]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

This is where it gets interesting, the fire started when the ship was light displacement LWT,without passengers, cargo,supplies equipment etc so waterline was above water level heating up bad and already metal affected before full Deadweight tonnage DWT and under water setting sail for NYC.

Why would they set sail knowing there was a fire?

[Tambohamilton]

Bunker fires were actually pretty common. The Titanic was just unfortunate/misguided enough to hit an iceberg at the same time.

[Tambohamilton]

I wonder what grade of steel the plating was made from?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by stocktree

Why would they set sail knowing there was a fire?

Under White Star then it was ''sail or be crucified''. The storage was overloaded with coal (even taken from other steamships) that was burning and the thought was just to keep shovelling it into the boilers a lot of the time to eventually get some containment.
This had the effect of keeping the ship at full speed under Captains orders to make up for lost time.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

I wonder what grade of steel the plating was made from?

The steel used on Titanic hull was the best plain carbon ship plate available at the time, though the sides of the ship were single plate the bottom of hull was actually double plate.
However an analysis done on a piece of plate taken from the ship showed that it had a high ductile/brittle transition temp making it not good for use in low temps.
This, combined with the heat weakening, -2c temp of sea at time of collision and angle of strike,speed and position of it all sought to go against Titanic.

[Tambohamilton]

Plain carbon plate...

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

Plain carbon plate...

In a manner of speaking but still steel