The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Titanic: The New Evidence [Chat]
RMS Oceanic
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So I've just watched a documentary called Titanic: The New Evidence, and I'm taking issue with some of its claims and assertions.
So I'm gonna skip over the whole story, you can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9w5bgtJC8
A lesser known facet of the story is that there was a Coal Bunker fire up against one of the bulkheads, which burned up until the day before the sinking. This has been known since the days of the inquiries, and not given much weight compared to the iceberg. This documentary uses newly discovered photographs and newspaper interviews to suggest the bunker fire started earlier (anything up to three weeks before she left Belfast, never mind Southampton), spread further and burned hotter than previously thought. Combined with metallurgical analysis and computer simulation, this suggests the fire warped and weakened the bulkhead, resulting in the bulkhead giving way and contributing to the sinking.
What do I think of this overall thesis? Seems plausible. It's one of those things we'll probably never know, but we can't rule it out, and it's interesting to explore. That's not what I take umbrage with. Even setting aside what felt like manipulative editing strategies, the documentary made some claims that I have not been able to see even reported elsewhere, and I wanted to look into it.
1. Why so fast?
The question of why Titanic was going so fast was apparently a mystery according to the show, and is explained by the bunker fire. The only real solution to a coal fire is to burn the coal ironically. Shovel it out of the bunker and into the furnace it was supposed to burn. By forcing more coal than planned into the boiler, this generates more steam and the ship goes faster. And because Titanic left port during a miners strike, coal was expensive and she only took enough to make it to New York. Slowing down with warnings of ice and then having to speed up again increases coal consumption and invites running out of fuel in the Mid-Atlantic.
Could the bunker fire have caused the high speeds? Much like the main assertion I don't dispute this. I do question why the documentary doesn't address the oft-repeated story that there was a desire to reach New York faster than Titanic's sister Olympic did on her maiden voyage, even if only to debunk it. As for slowing down due to ice warnings, this was something examined during the two inquiries, and testimony from across the shipping industry is that it was only standard practice to slow down in the visual presence of ice. Undoubtedly reckless, but humans have done stupid things until something catastrophic happened quite a lot.
2. The killing stroke
The green lines represent the approximate areas of damage caused by the iceberg. They indicate that the first five watertight comparements were open to the sea, as well as limited exposure to a sixth compartment. The documentary made the claim that had Bulkhead E, the bulkhead the bunker fire happened around, not failed, the Titanic's designer estimated she may have stayed afloat indefinitely, or long enough for rescue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5mOT57ghM
When I heard that claim I had to verify it, and I couldn't. Every report I could find says that Thomas Andrews, the ship's designer and architect, examined the damage and concluded that because the flooding in the first five compartments was beyond control, the ship was doomed. She could only stay afloat if four of the first five compartments were flooding. And he had a pretty good eyeball of the time needed, estimating Titanic would sink in 1.5-2 hours, which Titanic actually outpaced. Now if the bulkhead failure didn't contribute to the sinking could she have stayed afloat longer? Maybe, but the claim that he estimated the first five compartments flooding could keep her afloat long enough seems to come from nowhere.
3. Not enough boats
This is a minor one, but the documentary claims the company's confidence in Titanic's unsinkability is the primary reason not enough boats were aboard for all. This is an error more of scale than outright scope, because it ignores the Board of Trade regulations that ahad absurdly outdated minimum lifeboat requirements, it also ignores how sinkings were imagined before Titanic. Lifeboats were meant to ferry people to waiting rescue ships rather than save people by themselves. The use case of needing to be in a lifeboat without access to a ship was not considered, to terrible consequence.
4. "New" theory
And finally, the documentary says the theory of the bunker fire contributing to the sinking is new, which nope. I've known about it for years, and perfunctory googling shows news articles from 2004 and 2008 reporting on the "new" theory.
Summation
I don't take issue with putting forth the theory that a bulkhead failure contributed to and accelerated the sinking. It makes sense and there is metallurgical evidence. But the tone of the documentary makes it seem like it would have gone down completely differently if the bunker fire didn't happen, and I don't see that being the case.
If anyone wants to cross examine my claims and show anything I've missed, go ahead. I'd just like to ask the documentary team where some of their claims come from.
So I'm gonna skip over the whole story, you can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9w5bgtJC8A lesser known facet of the story is that there was a Coal Bunker fire up against one of the bulkheads, which burned up until the day before the sinking. This has been known since the days of the inquiries, and not given much weight compared to the iceberg. This documentary uses newly discovered photographs and newspaper interviews to suggest the bunker fire started earlier (anything up to three weeks before she left Belfast, never mind Southampton), spread further and burned hotter than previously thought. Combined with metallurgical analysis and computer simulation, this suggests the fire warped and weakened the bulkhead, resulting in the bulkhead giving way and contributing to the sinking.
What do I think of this overall thesis? Seems plausible. It's one of those things we'll probably never know, but we can't rule it out, and it's interesting to explore. That's not what I take umbrage with. Even setting aside what felt like manipulative editing strategies, the documentary made some claims that I have not been able to see even reported elsewhere, and I wanted to look into it.
1. Why so fast?
The question of why Titanic was going so fast was apparently a mystery according to the show, and is explained by the bunker fire. The only real solution to a coal fire is to burn the coal ironically. Shovel it out of the bunker and into the furnace it was supposed to burn. By forcing more coal than planned into the boiler, this generates more steam and the ship goes faster. And because Titanic left port during a miners strike, coal was expensive and she only took enough to make it to New York. Slowing down with warnings of ice and then having to speed up again increases coal consumption and invites running out of fuel in the Mid-Atlantic.
Could the bunker fire have caused the high speeds? Much like the main assertion I don't dispute this. I do question why the documentary doesn't address the oft-repeated story that there was a desire to reach New York faster than Titanic's sister Olympic did on her maiden voyage, even if only to debunk it. As for slowing down due to ice warnings, this was something examined during the two inquiries, and testimony from across the shipping industry is that it was only standard practice to slow down in the visual presence of ice. Undoubtedly reckless, but humans have done stupid things until something catastrophic happened quite a lot.
2. The killing stroke
The green lines represent the approximate areas of damage caused by the iceberg. They indicate that the first five watertight comparements were open to the sea, as well as limited exposure to a sixth compartment. The documentary made the claim that had Bulkhead E, the bulkhead the bunker fire happened around, not failed, the Titanic's designer estimated she may have stayed afloat indefinitely, or long enough for rescue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5mOT57ghMWhen I heard that claim I had to verify it, and I couldn't. Every report I could find says that Thomas Andrews, the ship's designer and architect, examined the damage and concluded that because the flooding in the first five compartments was beyond control, the ship was doomed. She could only stay afloat if four of the first five compartments were flooding. And he had a pretty good eyeball of the time needed, estimating Titanic would sink in 1.5-2 hours, which Titanic actually outpaced. Now if the bulkhead failure didn't contribute to the sinking could she have stayed afloat longer? Maybe, but the claim that he estimated the first five compartments flooding could keep her afloat long enough seems to come from nowhere.
3. Not enough boats
This is a minor one, but the documentary claims the company's confidence in Titanic's unsinkability is the primary reason not enough boats were aboard for all. This is an error more of scale than outright scope, because it ignores the Board of Trade regulations that ahad absurdly outdated minimum lifeboat requirements, it also ignores how sinkings were imagined before Titanic. Lifeboats were meant to ferry people to waiting rescue ships rather than save people by themselves. The use case of needing to be in a lifeboat without access to a ship was not considered, to terrible consequence.
4. "New" theory
And finally, the documentary says the theory of the bunker fire contributing to the sinking is new, which nope. I've known about it for years, and perfunctory googling shows news articles from 2004 and 2008 reporting on the "new" theory.
Summation
I don't take issue with putting forth the theory that a bulkhead failure contributed to and accelerated the sinking. It makes sense and there is metallurgical evidence. But the tone of the documentary makes it seem like it would have gone down completely differently if the bunker fire didn't happen, and I don't see that being the case.
If anyone wants to cross examine my claims and show anything I've missed, go ahead. I'd just like to ask the documentary team where some of their claims come from.
RMS Oceanic on
+23
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I just had the "I'm about to drop $300 to get a hawken flintlock up and running" conversation with my wife who forgot that we had this conversation a month ago and gave me the side eye over the cost and I was all "2017 woman fuck the budget new year new mistakes!"
Couldn't be worse than 2016, could it?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
You mean, like with The Empire Strikes Back?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
good afternoon
Challenge accepted.
like, take some masking tape to that thing after you leave the house, dawg.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Hawken Flintlock?
That's a very nice name. I am a little mad I didn't come up with it.
Directed by Irvin Kershner
Written by Leigh Brackett (screenplay), Lawrence Kasdan (screenplay), and George Lucas (story)
Executive Producer George Lucas
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/208930/pax-south-2017-fancy-dinner-libations-conversations-sign-up-now#latest
Fancy dinner signups!
Das Uber Hawken Flintlock, where's that TPS report?
It's all faked to drive up movie sales. Just like the Berlin Wall and Illinois.
I was looking forward to that thread for nearly a year.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
- On a scale of 1 to 10, how cromulent did you find "Run the [Chat] 3"?
- On a scale of 1 to 10, did you feel the topic of "Run the [Chat] 3" was perceptibly incongruent to your preferred [chatting] proclivities?
- Please leave any other feedback (300 character max).
Thank you!
8
8
Ok.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
- 10
- 10
- 10
88, huh?
*grabs nazi bapping stick*
The Kinesis Phase kind of looks like it's been crashed
Ach, I haff been found out!
*makes Hydra salute*
Heil Hydra!
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
* clicks things at random until survey window is dismissed *
Thank you for subscribing to [Chat] Facts!
Alt-F4ed out of Rimworld on a permadeath save without thinking
Turns out there's a background autosave so i only lost like 6 minutes of progress, thankfully
Much like Subprime Mortgages, bad ideas are only obviously bad when something bad happens
Fireman, I think.
*nod nod*
Alt-tabbing out of Crypt of the Necrodancer on my PC is a bad, BAD idea. Basically can induce an epileptic fit as the game tries switching band and forth between resolutions and other crap, and in essence locked down my PC until I remembered alt+f4 can force kill it.