jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) (08/11/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
I'm finding it hard to understand, didn't the Titanic have a double bottom??And if she only popped some rivots,then why couldn't the pumps keep ahead of
the water?? Also, what about the doulbe bottom...The Titanic could float
with the first 4 compartments flooded, but 6 compartments were "opened".
After the fifth compartment,there was a few feet between the hull and
the inner lining. There must have been a gash somewhere, there has to
have been something to enter the double bottom. Also the reports go
to the effect that the "Big T" is buried quite a few feet in the sludge of
the bottom. So how can anyone be sure what really happened.
Does anyone have some thoughts on this subject? I'd like to hear
them.
Jack Stanleymazlack@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (08/11/86)
> > I'm finding it hard to understand, didn't the Titanic have a double bottom??And if she only popped some rivots,then why couldn't the pumps keep ahead of >the water?? Also, what about the doulbe bottom...The Titanic could float >with the first 4 compartments flooded, but 6 compartments were "opened". The "double hull" actually was a double bulk head that was only double to a certain height (what, I don`t recall). The top of the double was left open. So, when the ship tipped, the water sloshed over the top from a damaged compartment to an undamaged one. Thus, the double hull was only good if the ship didn`t loose normal orientation. ...Larry mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu
keith@uiucme.UUCP (08/14/86)
As probably the only net reader with a background in naval architecture I feel it is my duty to add to the confusion. The TITANIC was among the first ships to have been subdivided into little compartments. If I recall it was a "three-compartment" ship, which means it was still floating and stable with any three compartments in a row floooded (that's a typo, but it has some whimiscal appeal). The problem was the builders and owners and officers were all so gung-ho about the "unsinkable" ship, the crew got the idea it was truly unsinkable and arrived at what we call a lack of discipline about watertight integrity. The watertight doors through the subdivision bulkheads got left open! Flooding was slowed down but was inevitable. You may recall the next famous unsinkable ship was the BISMARK. It was built with the lessons from the TITANIC in mind - there were no doors below the waterline. All well and good for the designers, but this generated lousy living conditions. A team of naval architects from the Admiralty worked for a long time on the strategy for dealing with this class of ship, I think it was six or maybe seven compartments floodable length. They sank it by putting enough holes in enough places to flood most of the ship. The EAGLE, by the way (U.S. Coast Guard training ship, my alma mater) was a zero-compartment ship until a fairly extensive rehab a few years ago. Ahh, the old days. . . . men of iron, ships of wood . . . . keith U of Illinois Mech Eng seismo!ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucme!keith