The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

Thanks for the post. I was one of the donors of period wrought iron
for the comparison testing. They (NIST)told me at the time that they'd
keep me informed but I never heard from them.

Pete Stanaitis
---------------------

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

On 2008-04-15, spaco wrote:
Thanks for the post. I was one of the donors of period wrought iron
for the comparison testing. They (NIST)told me at the time that they'd
keep me informed but I never heard from them.

Wow.

So, did you provide a good rivet or the one with too much slag?

Care to share anything?

i

Pete Stanaitis

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.

On 2008-04-15, Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.

I thought the article implied that the plates did not crack, but the
rivets popped?

i

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html


Iggy, if you are seriously interested there is a guy, Roger, over on
rec.boats cruising that has done a bunch of engineering studies on the
Titanic. Even been on T.V. programs about the sinking. Post a question
to him. I'm sure that you will get an answer.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

SteveB wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:


The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.


I heard it was inclusions of higher than normal levels of things that had
undesirable properties at low temperatures, sulfur being one of them, IIRC.
May have been beryllium. Or Einsteinium. I'm not sure.

Steve




I've seen reports claiming that too.
High sulpher content made the iron highly frangible at lower temps.

It just broke...


--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

This doesn't fit the scenario for wrought iron at all. Cast iron is
brittle for other reasons. The lower the carbon content, the less
brittle and work hardenable the material.

Pete Stanaitis
------------------------------


Gary Owens wrote:
Figure it out for yourself. Get an old cast iron window weight, turn it
down to about .75, cool it down to about 20 deg F , put it in a vice and
whack it. Tell us what happens. Or plane it down to about .75 so you
have a cast plate and cool that down and hit it, don't need to hit it hard.
We have all worked with old iron, press legs, things like that. works
just fine in compression, just don't hit the side of it.
gary


"Ignoramus15568" wrote in message
...

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

On 2008-04-15, spaco wrote:
This doesn't fit the scenario for wrought iron at all. Cast iron is
brittle for other reasons. The lower the carbon content, the less
brittle and work hardenable the material.

I do not think that Titanik's hull plates were cast iron, can anyone
clarify?

i

Pete Stanaitis


Gary Owens wrote:
Figure it out for yourself. Get an old cast iron window weight, turn it
down to about .75, cool it down to about 20 deg F , put it in a vice and
whack it. Tell us what happens. Or plane it down to about .75 so you
have a cast plate and cool that down and hit it, don't need to hit it hard.
We have all worked with old iron, press legs, things like that. works
just fine in compression, just don't hit the side of it.
gary


"Ignoramus15568" wrote in message
...

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

I provided a sample of double refined wrought iron that came from bridge
spikes that were recovered from the Mississippi River where most of that
bridge ended up after being dynamited to get rid of it. A guy up here
"mined" these spikes from the head end of an island and tried to sell
them as historical artifacts, but nobody was buying, so I bought several
hundred pounds of them at about 8 cents a pound, 20 years ago.
FWIW, these spikes are 3/4" square and vary from about 2 feet long to
about 3 feet long. Most of them, as I receive them, are bent in "S",
"U" and other shapes, for obvious reasons. They tell me that the bridge
was made mostly from 12" square pine timbers.

I never heard of this "best" and "best, best" rating. All I know is:
Muck bar (right out of the bloomery)
Double refined
Triple refined
Used (This is usually considered better than muck bar, since it has been
worked more).

For blacksmiths, this wrought iron, being VERY low in carbon content can
be worked a high heat. It is soft and doesn't work harden.

I am glad that none of MY early riveting was holding the Titanic together.

Pete Stanaitis
------------------------------------------------

Ignoramus15568 wrote:

On 2008-04-15, spaco wrote:

Thanks for the post. I was one of the donors of period wrought iron
for the comparison testing. They (NIST)told me at the time that they'd
keep me informed but I never heard from them.


Wow.

So, did you provide a good rivet or the one with too much slag?

Care to share anything?

i


Pete Stanaitis

Ignoramus15568 wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

I saw something about 10 years ago where they tested a piece of the
iron plate with an Izod impact tester, first at room temp, then after a
soak in a 28 F bath. First test was fine, sample bent a small, but
measurable amount. The cold test, however, caused the piece to break
like glass and bounce off the wall. They said the iron had a high
sulfur content, that makes it VERY brittle when cold. This was with an
actual sample of the Titanic plate brought up from the bottom. I think
it was a Nova episode.

Jon

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
On 2008-04-15, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:


The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.


I thought the article implied that the plates did not crack, but the
rivets popped?

i

I believe the (I think) Nova episode I mentioned in an earlier report
with the Izod tests of a Titanic plate sample also had underwater
footage of a HUGE crack in the plates of the ship, like 50 feet long.
I think there also was a National Geographic article about the same time.

Jon

"Robert Swinney" wrote:
Purely and simply, the Titanic sank because it rammed an iceberg at nearly
full speed. The strength
of plates, of rivets, formulation of the metal in the plates; all had very
little to do with it.
Take any modern vessel and ram an iceberg at full speed and it will sink
also. The "improved"
strength of modern materials might only account for a few minutes
difference in sink time.

The reason Titanic sank was because the segregated internal compartments
were not tall enough, and were open at the top. As the areas near the
fracture filled with water, they pulled the vessel down, allowing the
adjacent compartments to also fill with water from the top down (like an
overfilled bathtub). This progressed until the boat sank.

It the internal compartments had been taller, the cascading effect would not
have occurred, and while the vessel would have still been crippled, it would
not have sank.

Jon

"Ignoramus15568" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-15, spaco wrote:
This doesn't fit the scenario for wrought iron at all. Cast iron is
brittle for other reasons. The lower the carbon content, the less
brittle and work hardenable the material.

I do not think that Titanik's hull plates were cast iron, can anyone
clarify?

i


The hull plates were made of the new wonder product, steel.

Unfortunately, we were still working out the manufacturing processes for
steel at the time.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C10/C.../aa022800a.htm

It was the best there was at the time, but there were some unforeseen
limitations. The process left it with Phosphorus levels 4 times modern
levels and sulfur twice as high.

Paul K. Dickman

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that "Jon Danniken"
wrote on Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:22
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
"Robert Swinney" wrote:
Purely and simply, the Titanic sank because it rammed an iceberg at nearly
full speed. The strength
of plates, of rivets, formulation of the metal in the plates; all had very
little to do with it.
Take any modern vessel and ram an iceberg at full speed and it will sink
also. The "improved"
strength of modern materials might only account for a few minutes
difference in sink time.

The reason Titanic sank was because the segregated internal compartments
were not tall enough, and were open at the top. As the areas near the
fracture filled with water, they pulled the vessel down, allowing the
adjacent compartments to also fill with water from the top down (like an
overfilled bathtub). This progressed until the boat sank.

It the internal compartments had been taller, the cascading effect would not
have occurred, and while the vessel would have still been crippled, it would
not have sank.

It appears that if the Titanic has actually "rammed" the iceberg
(hit it dead on with the bow.) - the forward areas would have flooded,
but the ship would not have sunk. What seems to have doomed the
Titanic was not ramming the iceberg, but "side swiping" it - hitting
the iceberg with the side of the ship, and thus, opening more
compartments to the sea. The properties of the rivets and hull plates
seem to have compounded the problem.

So if that lookout had been slacking off, and slower on picking up
the iceberg, and warning the bridge, everything might have been better
off.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

On Apr 15, 1:29 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.

I heard it was inclusions of higher than normal levels of things that had
undesirable properties at low temperatures, sulfur being one of them, IIRC.
May have been beryllium. Or Einsteinium. I'm not sure.

Steve

I heard it was from running into an iceberg.

Dave (yes, I'm a smartass)

"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Purely and simply, the Titanic sank because it rammed an iceberg at nearly
full speed. The strength
of plates, of rivets, formulation of the metal in the plates; all had very
little to do with it.
Take any modern vessel and ram an iceberg at full speed and it will sink
also. The "improved"
strength of modern materials might only account for a few minutes
difference in sink time.

Bob (doesn't quibble over a few k-pounds) Swinney


I think the ability of seawater to cascade from one compartment to the other
had something to do with it, too, IIRC. Had the compartments been truly
watertight, only a few of them would have flooded, and the ship could have
stayed afloat with the buoyancy of the rest.

DO NOT quote me on this.

Steve

"spaco" wrote in message
news
This doesn't fit the scenario for wrought iron at all. Cast iron is
brittle for other reasons. The lower the carbon content, the less brittle
and work hardenable the material.

Pete Stanaitis
------------------------------

Steel manufacturing was "state of the art" at that time, yet was in the Iron
Age compared to today's metallurgy. They used the best they had, and I
believe some even pointed out there were fatal design flaws as they went
along. I wonder what % of the ship's critical structure was actual cast
iron versus steel.

Steve

On Apr 15, 5:02 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

Steel manufacturing was "state of the art" at that time, yet was in the Iron
Age compared to today's metallurgy. They used the best they had, and I
believe some even pointed out there were fatal design flaws as they went
along. I wonder what % of the ship's critical structure was actual cast
iron versus steel.

Steve

All steel plate. Casting ship plate wouldn't make sense. The
steel, as other have mentioned, had the property of cold-shortness,
caused by too much sulfer and phosphorus. The common 12L14 leaded
freecutting steel we love to machine has the same problem.
Machinability has its drawbacks.

Dan

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:32:42 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Ignoramus15568 quickly quoth:

On 2008-04-15, Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.

I thought the article implied that the plates did not crack, but the
rivets popped?

You mean that the gaping holes caused by ramming the iceberg and the
wide-open watertight doors had nothing to do with the sinking?


--
It is better to wear out than to rust out.
-- Bishop Richard Cumberland

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.


I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?


Kevin Gallimore


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:05:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
axolotl quickly quoth:

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.


I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?

That's probably a perfume pump. The old biddies on liners back then
wore it by the quart. Y'know, just like they do today.

---
- Nice perfume, Maam. Must you marinate in it? -
---
http://diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) laptop privacy/glare guards

wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 1:29 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.

I heard it was inclusions of higher than normal levels of things that had
undesirable properties at low temperatures, sulfur being one of them,
IIRC.
May have been beryllium. Or Einsteinium. I'm not sure.

Steve

I heard it was from running into an iceberg.

Dave (yes, I'm a smartass)

Ships have struck icebergs many times and not sank.

Steve (yes, I am not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Express) g

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:28:39 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:05:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
axolotl quickly quoth:

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.


I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?

That's probably a perfume pump. The old biddies on liners back then
wore it by the quart. Y'know, just like they do today.

---
- Nice perfume, Maam. Must you marinate in it? -
---
http://diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) laptop privacy/glare guards
Mostly to cover the stale, second hand tobacco odour.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On 2008-04-16, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:05:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
axolotl quickly quoth:

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.


I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?

That's probably a perfume pump. The old biddies on liners back then
wore it by the quart. Y'know, just like they do today.

Check this out


http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_8.jpg

What is in the middle, covered by a bench side?

Looks like a disposable plastic cup to me.

i

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
On 2008-04-16, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:05:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
axolotl quickly quoth:

Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.

I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?
That's probably a perfume pump. The old biddies on liners back then
wore it by the quart. Y'know, just like they do today.

Check this out


http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_8.jpg

What is in the middle, covered by a bench side?

Looks like a disposable plastic cup to me.

i

Yep. Probably left there by the Spielberg crew during the filming for
Titanic. You can see that same type of cup when they are working to
raise the safe in the first part of the movie. Looks like a Solo 12 oz.

--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

Life is not like a box of chocolates
it's more like a jar of jalapenos-
what you do today could burn your ass tomorrow!

"SteveB" wrote in message
news

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.

I heard it was inclusions of higher than normal levels of things that had
undesirable properties at low temperatures, sulfur being one of them,
IIRC. May have been beryllium. Or Einsteinium. I'm not sure.

Steve


I have an old structural engineering book, published about 2 years after the
sinking. The problem caused by too much sulphur was well known at the time.
It's a UK textbook, "Theory of Structures".

Steve R.



--
Reply address munged to bugger up spammers

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:01:35 GMT, "Steve R." wrote:


"SteveB" wrote in message
news

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus15568
wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting. Another
one mentioned that if quality welding was available and used to make
the hull, then it would not open up the way it did due to the
collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html

the problem was caused by the cold temperature properties of the
particular alloy used in the plates of the hull.

I heard it was inclusions of higher than normal levels of things that had
undesirable properties at low temperatures, sulfur being one of them,
IIRC. May have been beryllium. Or Einsteinium. I'm not sure.

Steve


I have an old structural engineering book, published about 2 years after the
sinking. The problem caused by too much sulphur was well known at the time.
It's a UK textbook, "Theory of Structures".

Steve R.


I'm going to quote a portion of a post from a chap named Roger Long on
rec.boats cruising. I will not quote the entire post as you can
contact him on that group if you are interested.

Quote

Yes, the rivet lady. Cute gal. I was really looking forward to being
flown out to Seattle to be filmed with her as part of the show but she
wouldn't even answer our phone calls.

They kind of overlook some basic engineering and structural facts.
With a structure as heavy and delicate as the Titanic, and even a
modern welded ship would be considered delicate in these terms, and
something as immovable as a iceberg entrained in the water mass, the
damage path was going to be determined by the geometry of the
encounter.

Unquote

Science via the New York Times is a sometimes thing.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Apr 16, 4:01*am, "Steve R." wrote:
I have an old structural engineering book, published about 2 years after the
sinking. The problem caused by too much sulphur was well known at the time..
It's a UK textbook, "Theory of Structures".

Steve R.

The problems caused by sulphur and phosphorus were known before the
1700's, although they didn't understand the chemistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Darby_I

Jim Wilkins

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:




I'm going to quote a portion of a post from a chap named Roger Long on
rec.boats cruising. I will not quote the entire post as you can
contact him on that group if you are interested.

Quote

Yes, the rivet lady. Cute gal. I was really looking forward to being
flown out to Seattle to be filmed with her as part of the show but she
wouldn't even answer our phone calls.

They kind of overlook some basic engineering and structural facts.
With a structure as heavy and delicate as the Titanic, and even a
modern welded ship would be considered delicate in these terms, and
something as immovable as a iceberg entrained in the water mass, the
damage path was going to be determined by the geometry of the
encounter.

Unquote

Science via the New York Times is a sometimes thing.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)



He may have a point, but he isn't real keen on metalurgy...



Richard

--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:57:21 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Ignoramus15568 quickly quoth:

Check this out


http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_8.jpg

What is in the middle, covered by a bench side?

Looks like a disposable plastic cup to me.

Yeah, a beer cup from the stadium. Hmmm...

Did anyone ask Kate or Leo if it was theirs?

--
It is better to wear out than to rust out.
-- Bishop Richard Cumberland

On Apr 15, 2:34*pm, Jon Elson wrote:
The cold test, however, caused the piece to break
like glass and bounce off the wall. *They said the iron had a high
sulfur content, that makes it VERY brittle when cold. *
Jon

The Ken Marschall painting of the port side of the stern "based on
photographs taken of the wreck" shows bent and wrinkled lower side
plating with some rips that cross plate edges.

I think I remember seeing a painting of the other side with the plates
separated along the seams. Maybe that was another shipwreck?

Jim Wilkins

axolotl wrote:
Ignoramus15568 wrote:

The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.



I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?


Kevin Gallimore


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Looks far to clean to have been there when the ship went down, doesen't it?

My "toy box" contains a small handful of crushed coal recovered from the
Titanic. I purchased it from Ballard's group about ten years ago. Why? I
dunno... Probably the same unknown reason why I bought a small piece of
the Berlin wall when it came down... I can rationalize those purchases
by saying that if I'd spent the same money on booze it'd have
dissapeared down the drain long ago.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:21:42 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:




I'm going to quote a portion of a post from a chap named Roger Long on
rec.boats cruising. I will not quote the entire post as you can
contact him on that group if you are interested.

Quote

Yes, the rivet lady. Cute gal. I was really looking forward to being
flown out to Seattle to be filmed with her as part of the show but she
wouldn't even answer our phone calls.

They kind of overlook some basic engineering and structural facts.
With a structure as heavy and delicate as the Titanic, and even a
modern welded ship would be considered delicate in these terms, and
something as immovable as a iceberg entrained in the water mass, the
damage path was going to be determined by the geometry of the
encounter.

Unquote

Science via the New York Times is a sometimes thing.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)



He may have a point, but he isn't real keen on metalurgy...



Richard


You may be right.

The guy makes his living designing survey boats and other ocean going
vessels, for various research organizations like Woods Hole, etc.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

This is an interesting book on steel technology in 1921 by Fred
Colvin;
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20282...-h/20282-h.htm


"Sulphur is of most trouble to rolling and forging operations when
conducted at a red heat. It makes steel tender and brittle at that
temperature—a condition known to the workmen as "red-short." It seems
to have little or no effect upon the physical properties of cold steel—
at least as revealed by the ordinary testing machines—consequently
many specifications do not set any limit on sulphur, resting on the
idea that if sulphur is low enough not to cause trouble to the
manufacturer during rolling, it will not cause the user any trouble. "

In article ,
Ignoramus15568 wrote:

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_8.jpg

What is in the middle, covered by a bench side?

Looks like a disposable plastic cup to me.

AHA! That's it! Proof that the entire Titanic sinking was faked.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:07:13 +0000 (UTC), (Edward
A. Falk) wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus15568 wrote:

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_8.jpg

What is in the middle, covered by a bench side?

Looks like a disposable plastic cup to me.

AHA! That's it! Proof that the entire Titanic sinking was faked.


That photo obviously was taken in Tank#3 at Universal Studios !!

Its a government conspiracy by the NeoCons and the running dog
military industrial complex led by that rat******* Shrub!!

On Apr 29, 4:29 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Incredible photo. And I don't recognize that device. I've got no naval
experience, and wasn't alive at that period of time.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"axolotl" wrote in ...
Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.

I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?

Kevin Gallimore

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

That is an excellent picture.
Karl

wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 4:29 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Incredible photo. And I don't recognize that device. I've got no naval
experience, and wasn't alive at that period of time.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"axolotl" wrote in
...
Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.

I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?

Kevin Gallimore

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

That is an excellent picture.
Karl

It's a pump.


Steve R.



--
Reply address munged to bugger up spammers

On Thu, 01 May 2008 02:14:48 GMT, "Steve R." wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 4:29 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Incredible photo. And I don't recognize that device. I've got no naval
experience, and wasn't alive at that period of time.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"axolotl" wrote in
...
Ignoramus15568 wrote:
The article does not amount to proof, but it is interesting.

I see that Dr. Ballard has released a new book of Titanic pictures.
Among them is this (superb) picture of a deck machine of some type.

http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/.../titanic_5.jpg

What is it?

Kevin Gallimore

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

That is an excellent picture.
Karl

It's a pump.


Steve R.


Didnt help.


G

Gunner