37 seconds

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:29 pm

"The 37-seconds on the bridge of Titanic is as mad as the 6-seconds in Dallas . . . untenable . . ."

No so! In fact that is exactly how long Titanic was off course before she struck the iceberg.

Jim
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Thomas Golembiewski on Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:44 am

Insanity . . . of the first rank!

The 37-second hypothesis is nothing more than a construct to deflect away from what realy happened that fateful night . . . (I'd love to find out who dreams this stuff up?) , . .
Thomas Golembiewski
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:13 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:23 pm

Hello Thomas!

I apologise that I did not make myself plain enough!

When I said 'Exactly' I meant that 6 seconds was the exact amount of time Titanic had turned off her original course before she hit the iceberg. The iceberg was in fact no more than 174 feet ahead of the ship when she started her turn. Otherwise the forepeak tank would not have been holed.

The sums are: speed 21.5 knots = 36.3 feet per second therefore Titanic would travel 36.3 x 6 = 218 (rounded-up) feet in 6 seconds.. the time between the helm order being given and the time the ship hit the iceberg.
But, Titanic did not hit the iceberg with her bow but behind and to the right of it.
Since the forepeak tank was holed and the Bulkead between it and the number one hold is 44 feet behind the bow and Titanic traveled a total distance of 218 feet, it means that the iceberg was no more than 218 - 44 = 174 feet ahead of Titanic when her bow started to turn left.

Sorry to have been so confusing!

Jim
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby George Behe on Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:07 am

Hi, Jim.

>When I said 'Exactly' I meant that 6 seconds was the exact amount of time Titanic had turned off her >original course before she hit the iceberg. The iceberg was in fact no more than 174 feet ahead of the ship >when she started her turn.

If that was truly the case, how do you explain the fact that QM Olliver was standing on the compass platform when he heard the lookouts' three bells and that it would have taken approximately 45-50 seconds for him to reach the bridge in time to see the berg passing astern of the starboard bridge wing (which is what Olliver testified to seeing)?

All my best,

George
George Behe
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:45 am

Hello George!

Have read and heard a great deal about you and your work. Nice to converse with the man himself albeit by the pen! :lol:

Forgive me for saying so but you make the same error as have done many other researchers... lumped the three bell warning together with the helm order.

In fact, Titanic was safe and being operated in the (sort of) normal manner right up until Murdoch gave that fateful helm order. From that moment, Titanic had two choices... keep going straight and hit the berg or turn left or right but still hit the berg.

As you know, the 47 second period comes from an attempt by the UK Inquiry and White Star Company people to fit QM Hitchens statement that Titanic turned 2 points from when he received the helm order until the time the ship hit the ice. They simply turned Olympic 2 points when travelling at 21.5 knots and found it took 47 seconds to do so. However they were not comparing like-for-like. Olympic did not have a sudden sideways effort imposed on her bow during that trial!

Subsequent researchers have matched Olliver's 'walk' to re-enforce the veracity of the 47 second turn theory.

The first half of the 47 second proposal ... the alleged 41 seconds before the helm order was given is the part where Olliver can do his walk from midship (the standard compass platform)to the bridge. I have measured that distance the base of the Standard Compass Platform to the bridge and walked it myself and I agree, it would take, as you say, 45-50 seconds (allowing for ladders etc) for a man to cover that distance.
If Ollivers did indeed hear the three bells and immediately left for the bridge and saw the berg as it had just passed the bridge then the moment he saw the berg was about 7 seconds after impact and 13 seconds after the helm order was given. If this were so, then the bells were sounded 34 seconds before the helm order was given. However, the Lookouts stated that the ship's head was turning at the time when one of them was still at the telephone. This places him at the telephone less than 6 seconds before impact. All of this points to the lookouts having waited almost 30 seconds before they rang the bridge and to Murdoch having seen the iceberg at or just before the moment the Lookouts decided to use the telephone.

This 34 second period re-inforces Hitchens's statement to the UK Inquiry that he was given the helm order 'about half a minute' after he heard the three bells. However that statement contradicts the statement he made in the US when he said the helm order came almost immediately after the three bells.
Is it possible Fleet had a word with him in the lifeboat or on Carpathia?

That first half of the 47 second period is academic but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Murdoch gave the initial helm order 6 seconds before the ship hit the iceberg and there was no way under normal circumstances that Titanic changed her heading 2 points in that time.. However, I do believe she did as Hitchens said she did but it was not under normal circumstances and the ships head was turned more than normal because of the assistance given by that lump of ice.

Regards,

Jim.
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby George Behe on Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:19 pm

Hi, Jim.

I confess that I hastily misread your posting, and I agree with you that there was roughly a thirty-second delay between Fleet's three-bell warning and Murdoch's hard-astarboard order. (Indeed, that is the very scenario that is presented in Sam Halpern's "Report Into the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal" (which I helped to co-author.)

All my best,

George
George Behe
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:12 pm

Haven't read the book yet!

I wonder why Hitchens changed his story from "3 bells immediately followed by the phone, immediately followed by the helm and engine order."?

I am not entirely convinced by the evidence of QM Olliver but that's another thing!

Jim
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Peter Crew on Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:54 am

Hello eveyone,,,a simple question,,on an Olympic class liner,,was the rudder simply too small to effectively turn the ship,,at 21 knots, in 30 seconds???
Peter Crew
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:50 am

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:33 pm

Hello Peter!

Not sure what you mean. The rudder was possibly too small to give perfect or at least desired performance. I believe there is some information regarding this somewhere.

As for your 30 second question: It would depend entirely how far you needed the bow to turn in that time... i.e. 10,15 or 20 dgrees.. a desired performance

You probably know that they did tests with Olympic in an attempt to find out how long it would take hard-over rudder to turn the ship 22.5 degrees (2 points) when travelling at 21+ knots. The answer, you will also know, was 37 seconds.
But that test, while of academic value, was a complete waste of time as far as Titanic was concerned. They couldn't simulate the push of the iceberg on Titanic's starboard bow. therefore there was a very big element of turning force missing from the test. Even modern researchers have fallen into the trap created by trying to match the 2 point turn without allowing for the impact of the iceberg.

Jim
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Peter Crew on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:39 am

Hi Jim,,thanks for the answer,,as an amateur titanic enthusiast,,but a long time sailboat racer,,rudder size effects performance at speed,,,it just seems,,looking at photos and diagrams of the steering engine,,that titanic's rudder would not have responded quickly in a high speed turn.......Again,,thanks for responding...........Peter
Peter Crew
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:50 am

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:56 pm

Helo Peter!

There is little doubt that rudder design has come a long way since 1912 and our knowledge of the contribution the rudder makes has accelerated since the advent of CAD. However you would be surprised how quickly a big ship can respond to rudder.. even at slow speeds. This was then and still is an absolute requirement when navigating in narrrow channels, particularly in canals and other such restricted waterways. They had these in 1912. The Suez Canal being the most prominent example.

What kind of boats and where do you sail? :mrgreen:

Have worked with lots of different kinds myself, from Optimists, Fireballs and even the old GP14s upward!

Great fun when you're young!



Jim
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Peter Crew on Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:23 am

Hi Jim,,,I sail Sunfish,,Lasers and a Melges 20,,all in the Galveston Bay area of Texas,,,,.. And I must say rudder control on the tankers and container ships that use the Houston Ship Channel must be amazing......Peter
Peter Crew
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:50 am

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Eric Wilson on Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:40 am

Clearly this subject matter can only be answered by a physicist as for these matters can only be answered through the Laws of Mathematical Physics,Ie Tons, Length,Rudder size,Speed, and Distance.. vs reaction time.Ect..Just like calculating the impact of a train with various variables,ie car count as well as speed.Of which I am not knowledgeable to answer.
אביחיל בן אברהם
And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world. - Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Babylonian Talmud
Eric Wilson
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:06 pm
Location: Clermont Fl.

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:15 am

Hello there Peter!

Fast little boats and I know great fun. The young people here are keen sailors. Fantastic sport!

I am ashamed to say that the last time I was in your pat of the world was 1953... a long time ago! :oops:

However I do remember the Glen Campbell song about it :lol:

Jim
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Tuomas Mattinen on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:52 am

This might be of some interest: http://www.uco.es/~ff1mumuj/titanic1.htm

Please look at the section 2, "The Collision".
Tuomas Mattinen
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:45 am

Re: 37 seconds

Postby Jim Buchanan on Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:54 am

Hello Tuomas! Sounds like you may come from Finland?

I have read that article. It was written (I think) by en ex steam engineer.

The most importnat contribution it makes is the linking of the engine telegraph order, helm order and impact.
He makes a mistake though! It was two greasers who were nearest to the telegraphs who acknowleged the 'stop' order.

James.
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Previous

Return to Collision and Sinking Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests