In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Titanic sunk by a fire??? What fire??
bpost
Member Posts: 32,669 ✭✭✭✭
http://www.{elsewhere}news/2016/12/31/huge-fire-ripped-titanic-struck-iceberg-fresh-evidence-suggests/
The sinking of the largest ship ever built, the Titanic, may owe as much to a enormous fire onboard as it did to a gigantic iceberg, it has been claimed.
The doomed vessel, which measured more than 880ft long and 100ft tall, went down with the loss of more than 1500 lives on April 15, 1912 during her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York.
However fresh evidence that the Titanic's hull may have been crippled by a massive blaze that burned unchecked for almost three weeks immediately behind the spot where it was later pierced.
The claim was made by journalist and Titanic expert Senan Malony, who has spent more than 30 years researching the disaster.
He used little known photographs taken by the Titanic's chief electrical engineer before it left Belfast shipyard to identify 30ft-long black marks along the front right-hand side of the hull.
Mr Malony said: "We are looking at the exact area where the iceberg stuck, and we appear to have a weakness or damage to the hull in that specific place, before she even left Belfast".
The sinking of the largest ship ever built, the Titanic, may owe as much to a enormous fire onboard as it did to a gigantic iceberg, it has been claimed.
The doomed vessel, which measured more than 880ft long and 100ft tall, went down with the loss of more than 1500 lives on April 15, 1912 during her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York.
However fresh evidence that the Titanic's hull may have been crippled by a massive blaze that burned unchecked for almost three weeks immediately behind the spot where it was later pierced.
The claim was made by journalist and Titanic expert Senan Malony, who has spent more than 30 years researching the disaster.
He used little known photographs taken by the Titanic's chief electrical engineer before it left Belfast shipyard to identify 30ft-long black marks along the front right-hand side of the hull.
Mr Malony said: "We are looking at the exact area where the iceberg stuck, and we appear to have a weakness or damage to the hull in that specific place, before she even left Belfast".
Comments
Bunkers fires were relatively common and well understood in 1912.
The * along the side of the Titanic was in excess of 300 feet long, compromising 6 watertight exclusion zones. (Yes these zones were open well above the waterline, but the ship was designed to survive if up to three were compromised).
The bunker was less than 30 feet long, and any fire would have compromised at most 2 of these zones; the two that included boiler rooms 5 and 6.
Even at that, the hull of the ship, being in constant contact with the water where the iceberg hit, was not heated to any great degree, as the sea water kept the steel temperature well below any level that would have caused damage. There are reports that an internal bulkhead between bunkers from boiler room 5 and boiler room 6 may have been heated to a point that could have damaged the steel, but there is not, and there cannot be any reasonable thinking that steel in contact with the water of the North Atlantic was compromised in any way by the bunker fire.
I've got to come up with a way to feed Mr. Maloney a theory of rivet weevils in the starboard hull and see if he runs with that as well.
Brad Steele
Anything to sell a paper, I guess.
Bunkers fires were relatively common and well understood in 1912.
The * along the side of the Titanic was in excess of 300 feet long, compromising 6 watertight exclusion zones. (Yes these zones were open well above the waterline, but the ship was designed to survive if up to three were compromised).
The bunker was less than 30 feet long, and any fire would have compromised at most 2 of these zones; the two that included boiler rooms 5 and 6.
Even at that, the hull of the ship, being in constant contact with the water where the iceberg hit, was not heated to any great degree, as the sea water kept the steel temperature well below any level that would have caused damage. There are reports that an internal bulkhead between bunkers from boiler room 5 and boiler room 6 may have been heated to a point that could have damaged the steel, but there is not, and there cannot be any reasonable thinking that steel in contact with the water of the North Atlantic was compromised in any way by the bunker fire.
I've got to come up with a way to feed Mr. Maloney a theory of rivet weevils in the starboard hull and see if he runs with that as well.
Your explanation,just dis-missed 30 years of research,,
the fire could have changed the properties of the steel used in the hull, either heat treated making it brittle and less flexible, or annealed it making it too flexible. yes? no?? thoughts??
I bleive Don's post nailed it. Fire not big enough,hot enough,to make a difference to the steel.
the fire could have changed the properties of the steel used in the hull, either heat treated making it brittle and less flexible, or annealed it making it too flexible. yes? no?? thoughts??
The steel in the hull was submerged so it never got hot. A transverse bulkhead was observed to have been heated to a red hot condition, but its failure, had it even occurred, would not have let water into the ship.
Brad Steele
K.Kong.
Yeah...[B)]
The damage caused by the fire just happened to coincidentally become critical at the very moment the Titanic sideswiped an iceberg.
Yeah...[B)]
[:D][:D][;)]
Here is some useless trivia about the Titanic- After 104 years the Titanic's swimming pools are still full of water......[;)]
Not one leak???[:0][:0]