Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Titanic was on fire before it sank

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Titanic was on fire before it sank

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ence-suggests/

    I never seen that in the movie.

  • #2
    I have heard about the fire before but not the suggestions about the damage made in this article. I think it was always believed Titanic was going too fast in order to cross the Atlantic in record time.

    (A relation of mine worked on the movie. Extraordinary efforts were made for authenticity down to the smallest detail.)
    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

    Comment


    • #3
      The fire was burning for the majority of the trip. However, i'm not convinced that it would have made any significant impact on the strength of the steel. If the steel was weaker than it should have been, it's probably got more to do with the engineering methods of the early 20th century than that of a fire. Besides, wouldn't the freezing temperatures of the Atlantic have counteracted any heat that was generated through the steel?

      Cheers,
      Adam.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't know. The physical world has a way of springing surprises. I guess we'd need a metallurgist and the metallurgist would need the precise composition of the steel plus however many other parameters.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
          The fire was burning for the majority of the trip. However, i'm not convinced that it would have made any significant impact on the strength of the steel. If the steel was weaker than it should have been, it's probably got more to do with the engineering methods of the early 20th century than that of a fire. Besides, wouldn't the freezing temperatures of the Atlantic have counteracted any heat that was generated through the steel?

          Cheers,
          Adam.
          It has been suggested that the steel used was inferior, that it was partly recycled or otherwise improperly prepared. If I remember correctly there was too much sulfur within the metal which caused a crystalline structure that was ready to shatter when the ice burg was struck. This is said to be a problem in modern metals which are largely recycled. It is hard to get pure metals at this time according to a friend of mine who is a metallurgist. (Also according to my friend, the Chinese own a number of U.S. iron mines and they extract pure metals while U.S. manufacturers have difficulty getting pure metals.)

          However that was, inferior metal had nothing to do with striking the ice burg at that particular spot or the ship going too fast to beat a time record. Even if the fire further damaged the metal it would probably take a lot of investigation to know if the fire damaged metal contributed to the sinking. The original article here kind of sounds like how we hunt the Ripper; if this is so then maybe this is so and the solution is... I have learned SO much from this forum!
          The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

          Comment


          • #6
            A good article on metal failure in Titanic is here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...kins-9801.html

            The authors note, "high ductile-brittle transition temperature," which seems to mean the metal became brittle in extremely cold temperatures. The authors do not believe the metal was inferior.
            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

            Comment


            • #7
              The steel used in the construction was the best available, when part of the hull was recovered this was found to be so. What was also found from the piece of hull though was that the rivets holding the steel plates together were of poor quality and when the ship scraped on the iceberg they gave way. Bunker fires were a common occurance on coal fired vessels but were mostly easily extinguished by flooding the bunker. Another problem with coal was that it could give off methane gas. This could explain the sinking of the Titanics sister ship the Lusitania. The bunker had after the trans Atlantic trip been almost emptied but gas from the coal lingered there in quite a considerable amount, the torpedo struck the bunker causing the gas to explode, hence the second explosion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi all,

                If memory serves, there was once a documentary which recovered a sample of and then tested the steel used in the construction of Titanic. I don't recall the impact of the fire ever being considered a factor in that, mind you it's been a long time since i've seen the documentary.

                However, what technology has proven is that rather than the 300 foot long gash of folklore, Titanic was actually subject to minimal damage when she struck the iceberg - the problem was that damage there was spread out over such a great area that the watertight compartments weren't constructed to cope with it.

                Cheers,
                Adam.

                Comment


                • #9
                  On YouTube https://youtu.be/GrCE73rBfuM

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Shall we just put this "revelation" down to more revisionist history that really doesn't change anything? I also think Adam Went has it right that the rip along the hull was so extensive that the watertight compartments couldn't handle the influx of seawater, so down she went.
                    Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                    https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                    Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                    Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I read that the number of compartments ripped open was just one too many - if it had been one less, the ship would have been able to limp along without sinking.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The programme was more about how the fire affected the the bulkheads rather than the hull. The evidence was that the bulkhead was found to be warped, witness statement, due to the heat and gave way suddenly, again backed up by an eye witness. There was a couple of problems. They didn't go into how quickly the last compartment was flooding, just that it wasn't filling as quickly as the others and would have gave more time for the rescue boat to have reached and saved all the people.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Chris:

                          Correct, the strength of the steel didn't matter once the damage was done. If it was a huge gash as the contemporaries thought, then I could understand it, but even if the fire had weakened the steel slightly in a couple of watertight compartments, say, it still doesn't account for the fact that the damage caused by the iceberg would have sunk the ship anyway.

                          Robert:

                          The problem with the design was that once one compartment filled, it could spill over into the next. Going back a while now there was a theory that if the watertight doors had been left open, the ship would have flooded on an even keel, hence lasting longer. This was subsequently tested on a scale model and it was found that Titanic probably would have sunk even sooner than she actually did, as even a slight movement in those many tons of water which flooded the ship would have caused her to capsize.

                          Cheers,
                          Adam.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X