ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


What a plonker... Very funny though.

This one is funnier.

I'll add the link:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm002CuA0

--
Adam

In message , The Other Mike
writes
On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:21:21 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

If the engine stops DO
check the exhaust is not under water before you try to restart - other
wise you will hydraulic the engine.

air comes in 'suck squeeze bang blow' combustion products are then
forced out of the exhaust

That's when the engine is running.
Engines don't suck air through the exhaust. Even if the exhaust is
flooded the engine will not hydraulic, it might not start but it will
certainly not hydraulic.


Standard part of MOD ( and other) off-road training. Happened to my
mate's Land Rover.
Suggest you go and try it.
--
hugh

Huge wrote:
On 2012-05-01, ARWadsworth wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


What a plonker... Very funny though.

This one is funnier.

I'll add the link:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm002CuA0

Wonderful!

I just love the way that bloke says "well done" just after he enters the
flood waters and breaks the bow wave:-)

That bloke knew what was going to happen.

--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2012-05-01, ARWadsworth wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


What a plonker... Very funny though.

This one is funnier.

I'll add the link:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm002CuA0

Wonderful!

I just love the way that bloke says "well done" just after he enters the
flood waters and breaks the bow wave:-)

That bloke knew what was going to happen.

Just as well the van was full of apes.

Don’t like their chances of getting a push if there was only one plod driver
inside.

On 01/05/2012 18:21, Tim Watts wrote:
hugh wrote:
....
The Titanics initial design unsinkability was destroyed by removing
bulkheads to create a massive uninterrupted deck.

I'll just clarify that I don't think the design was "unsinkable" (unlike,
say, a foam filled canoe) - just "very good". It did hold up for quite a
while despite having some bloody big holes ripped in it... Sadly, if there
had been enough lifeboatsand the crew had been drilled on a full
evacuation, that design might have bought them enough time to save a
considerable proportion of the passengers and crew.

They didn't managed to launch all the lifeboats they had, so it is far
from certain that more would have improved matters. OTOH, if they had
sent up red flares instead of white, the Californian would probably have
steamed to the rescue and picked up a lot of people before they died.

Colin Bignell

ARWadsworth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2012-05-01, ARWadsworth wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

What a plonker... Very funny though.
This one is funnier.
I'll add the link:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm002CuA0
Wonderful!

I just love the way that bloke says "well done" just after he enters the
flood waters and breaks the bow wave:-)

That bloke knew what was going to happen.

If he'd gone slower, he'd have got through, too. The water was well
below the danger level for one of those.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 01/05/2012 15:00, Tim Watts wrote:
...
I will agree with dennis here - the Titanic was of extremely good
construction in itself, relative to the day and its peers.

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better class of
fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's "unsinkability"

The actual 1911 quote from Shipbuilder magazine, which was later taken
out of context, was that when the watertight doors were closed, the
ship would be practically unsinkable.


Yeah, stuff that i have been reading about it recently suggests that the
whole unsinkable thing was not something that was claimed/trumpeted at
the time. but grew up aftwerwards as part of the whole titanic mythology
--
Chris French

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 01/05/2012 18:21, Tim Watts wrote:
hugh wrote:
...
The Titanics initial design unsinkability was destroyed by removing
bulkheads to create a massive uninterrupted deck.

I'll just clarify that I don't think the design was "unsinkable" (unlike,
say, a foam filled canoe) - just "very good". It did hold up for quite a
while despite having some bloody big holes ripped in it... Sadly, if there
had been enough lifeboatsand the crew had been drilled on a full
evacuation, that design might have bought them enough time to save a
considerable proportion of the passengers and crew.

They didn't managed to launch all the lifeboats they had, so it is far
from certain that more would have improved matters. OTOH, if they had
sent up red flares instead of white, the Californian would probably have
steamed to the rescue and picked up a lot of people before they died.

Colin Bignell

Course if they had Mr Marconi's stations on board listening out all the
time;?.

With the benefit of hindsight etc....
--
Tony Sayer

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


What a plonker... Very funny though.

This one is funnier.

I'll add the link:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm002CuA0


Wonder if they teach them flood driving at Hendon?. Thats of course
assuming that they do teach all bobbies to drive there?..

Can't say I found it all that amusing as who's going the have to pay for
repairs to that and by the look of that water got in the engine..

You are the taxpayer;(..
--
Tony Sayer

On Apr 30, 11:59*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:44:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"

wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Almost made it, if he hadn't been an arse and probably driving
something with a low air intake too.

thinks
They're called the Somerset Levels for a reason, aren't they?
Like, might be prone to the odd flood?

Probbly whwy they buitt on them cheap .......

They seem to be doing that quite a bit recently.....

On May 1, 9:06*am, "Muddymike" wrote:
On 30/04/2012 23:04, Tim Streater wrote:









In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Drive slowly. It stops the bow wave getting too large and gives you a
chance to stop if it looks as though the water is getting too deep. Also,
know where your water intake is, or the fording depth of the vehicle, if
published. I've seen engines wrecked by sucking in water and try to
compress it. I've also watched an early Mini float downstream while
crossing a ford - fortunately into a barrier alongside the ford.

The rules for fording a-
Lowest gear.
High revs (even if this requires slipping the clutch)
Forward pace fast enough to hold an un-broken bow wave.

On older vehicles removing the fan belt helps.

And yes, a very sound knowledge of where your air intake and any vital
electronics are located.

I don;t know much about cars but with most modern cars isn;t teh
eelctrics pretty vital
to everything.



Mike

On Tue, 1 May 2012 21:59:29 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

In message , The Other Mike
writes
On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:21:21 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

If the engine stops DO
check the exhaust is not under water before you try to restart - other
wise you will hydraulic the engine.

air comes in 'suck squeeze bang blow' combustion products are then
forced out of the exhaust

That's when the engine is running.

and when it's not running it's a pipe, running to lump of metal, the
pipe usually exiting the engine towards the top. It isn't actively or
passively sucking the flood water up and squirting it out the air
filter, nor is the water filling the cylinder bores unless the head of
water is higher than the exhaust ports on the head. All breathers will
vent back into the inlet manifold so no chance of water in the sump,
the dipstick hole is very high on the engine too. Near zero static
pressure from the surrounding water, nice seals on every opening.
Zero ingress of water.


Engines don't suck air through the exhaust. Even if the exhaust is
flooded the engine will not hydraulic, it might not start but it will
certainly not hydraulic.


Standard part of MOD ( and other) off-road training. Happened to my
mate's Land Rover.
Suggest you go and try it.

I've tried it, not intentionally, back in 2000. The car was an MOT
failure that was bought for spares, and had been parked up for a few
months, a one in 500 year flood event produced local water levels of
around 18 inches for a few days, then the floods receded. A week or
two later I put the key in ignition, cranked and started it. The
water had been most of the way up the cylinder block. The car was
f*cked, but there was bugger all water in the engine, not even in the
oil. That engine and box has since done around 150000 miles.

--

tony sayer wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
adamwadsworth@blue yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


What a plonker... Very funny though.

This one is funnier.

I'll add the link:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm002CuA0


Wonder if they teach them flood driving at Hendon?. Thats of course
assuming that they do teach all bobbies to drive there?..

Can't say I found it all that amusing as who's going the have to pay
for repairs to that and by the look of that water got in the engine..

You are the taxpayer;(..

I must admit to causing damage to a police vehicle. When I was at sixth form
college I had a weekend job at a petrol station. The local police station
had an account with us. Now when I saw the police officer filling the
Landrover up with petrol and not diesel I did not bother to tell him (I had
a run in with the ****** the week before and he thought it clever to knock
me and my parents out of bed at 3am)

--
Adam

On Tue, 1 May 2012 09:06:57 +0100, Muddymike wrote:

The rules for fording a-
Lowest gear.
High revs (even if this requires slipping the clutch)
Forward pace fast enough to hold an un-broken bow wave.

Agreed, found that out the hard way. A flood was "a bit" deeper than
I expected, expected 6" found about 18". B-)

I kept the small bow wave just lapping up onto the bonnet of a
Mondeo.
Water doesn't move out of the way like air and it took a lot of revs
and clutch slipping in 1st to keep the thing from stopping and/or
stalling. Car survived, though the starter motor was never quite the
same afterwards.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:12:13 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

The advice I liked with the Discovery was to remove the CD player (under
the front passenger seat) before tackling deep water.

The CD mechansium is under front drivers seat in a Disco II with the
(extra(?) "Harmon Cardon") power amps under the front passenger seat.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:21:39 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

BTW - death or no death impending, I would not have wanted to be near
the furnace rooms when they flooded! I'll take drowing and/or
hypothermia over being steamed to death...

I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse the fires before
that stage. Certainly Jack Phillips, the Titanics radio operator, was
sending messages that he couldn't read other stations due to steam
and air noise.

I'd recomend taking a listen to "Discovery: Titantic - In Her Own
Words".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00q89fy

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
says...

hugh wrote:

The Titanics initial design unsinkability was destroyed by removing
bulkheads to create a massive uninterrupted deck.

I'll just clarify that I don't think the design was "unsinkable" (unlike,
say, a foam filled canoe) - just "very good". It did hold up for quite a
while despite having some bloody big holes ripped in it...


Yes, but, as Hugh says, it differed from the original design because it
was felt that the First Class passengers wouldn't appreciate the
bulkheads intruding into 'their' space.

Thus the water was able to flow over the tops of the bulkheads and that
is why she sank.

So, the answer to WHO sank the Titanic is the Marketing Department of
the White Star Line ...

--

Terry

Terry Casey wrote:
So, the answer to WHO sank the Titanic is the Marketing Department of
the White Star Line ...

And her sister ship the Britannic sank in 1916 because the crew were too
lazy to close the watertight doors in the bulkheads or climb up a couple
of decks every time they wanted to go from one end of the bilge to the
other. After the explosion when she either hit a mine or was torpedoed,
the watertight doors below the waterline wouldn't close, but if they had
already been closed, she would not have sunk.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Terry Casey wrote:


So, the answer to WHO sank the Titanic is the Marketing Department of
the White Star Line ...

Ah Marketing. Nobbing up perfectly good engineering since 1911...
--
Tim Watts

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been
thousands dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.


The F_cktard strikes again!

The wind didn't blow it there, it was manoeuvred under power!

They did launch lifeboats and thousands would not have died because it
sank in shallow water!

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from
certain death.

Thousands were not saved from certain death, 1,514 passengers died and
only 710 passengers were saved.

Get your facts right!


I know which was the better ship.


just look at the icebergs in the background. lol


--
Iain

"Iain Freely" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been thousands
dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.


The F_cktard strikes again!

The wind didn't blow it there, it was manoeuvred under power!

You need to find the facts.
It lost all power and was blown back onto the shore.


They did launch lifeboats and thousands would not have died because it
sank in shallow water!

It came to a stop where the water was about 300 feet deep.
if it had gone down there they would have all died.
It didn't launch enough life boats to hold more than about 25% of the souls
on board.
In fact it didn't even have enough life boats to hold more than about 80% of
those onboard.



On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from certain
death.

Thousands were not saved from certain death, 1,514 passengers died and
only 710 passengers were saved.

Get your facts right!

You can talk, you don't have a clue about the Costa Concordia.

On 01/05/2012 13:30, dennis@home wrote:


"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.

More accurately, the crew did a crash stop by dropping the anchors,
which caused the ship to execute a fast 180 degree turn, before running
aground sideways. Once aground, there was not enough water for it to
remain floating upright, so it fell over on its side. It took about
three hours for it to fall over, although it started listing after about
20 minutes.

If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been
thousands dead.

If it hadn't been next to the shore to begin with, it wouldn't have hit
the rock, it wouldn't have run aground and it wouldn't have fallen over.

They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

They are not designed to be launched once the ship is listing more than
20 degrees, which happened before the launch order was given.

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from certain
death.

Titanic did not launch all her lifeboats, although she had more than
three times the time (30 minutes) allowed by current regulations between
the evacuation order and getting the last boat away. Two floated off as
she went down, one of which was upside down. They saved 711 passengers,
rather than 'thousands'.

Colin Bignell

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 May 2012 13:14:25 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Iain Freely" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been
thousands
dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.


The F_cktard strikes again!

The wind didn't blow it there, it was manoeuvred under power!

You need to find the facts.
It lost all power and was blown back onto the shore.


They did launch lifeboats and thousands would not have died because it
sank in shallow water!

It came to a stop where the water was about 300 feet deep.
if it had gone down there they would have all died.
It didn't launch enough life boats to hold more than about 25% of the
souls
on board.
In fact it didn't even have enough life boats to hold more than about 80%
of
those onboard.

It did have more than enough life rafts for the rest.

True, not that any were used.

Tim Watts wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in
its side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been
thousands dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed
afloat long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands
from certain death.

I know which was the better ship.


just look at the icebergs in the background. lol

I will agree with dennis here - the Titanic was of extremely good
construction in itself, relative to the day and its peers.

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better
class of fool,

Youm mean a better class of dennis?
--
Adam

Iain Freely wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in
its side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been
thousands dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.


The F_cktard strikes again!

The wind didn't blow it there, it was manoeuvred under power!

They did launch lifeboats and thousands would not have died because it
sank in shallow water!

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed
afloat long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands
from certain death.

Thousands were not saved from certain death, 1,514 passengers died and
only 710 passengers were saved.




Get your facts right!


Let's not get plural about it. We should start slowly and ask dennis to get
one fact right before moving on to multiple facts.

He needs to learn to walk before he can run. Give the failed old duffer a
chance:-)

--
Adam

In article ,
says...


Titanic did not launch all her lifeboats, although she had more than
three times the time (30 minutes) allowed by current regulations between
the evacuation order and getting the last boat away. Two floated off as
she went down, one of which was upside down.

These were collapsible lifeboats which, IIRC, were stowed on top of the
radio shack.

It was the upside down one, Collapsible B, that saved 2nd Officer
Lightoller and one of the Marconi operators, Harold Bride. The other
operator, Jack Philips, was also on Collapsible B but died, probably of
hypothermia, before the rescue by the Carpathia

--

Terry

In article , Terry
Casey scribeth thus
In article ,
says...


Titanic did not launch all her lifeboats, although she had more than
three times the time (30 minutes) allowed by current regulations between
the evacuation order and getting the last boat away. Two floated off as
she went down, one of which was upside down.

These were collapsible lifeboats which, IIRC, were stowed on top of the
radio shack.

It was the upside down one, Collapsible B, that saved 2nd Officer
Lightoller and one of the Marconi operators, Harold Bride. The other
operator, Jack Philips, was also on Collapsible B but died, probably of
hypothermia, before the rescue by the Carpathia


And prolly the two men who most deserved to survive .. after all they saved
all they could by the wireless if that hadn't been in operation;?..

--
Tony Sayer

..

On May 2, 9:33*am, Terry Fields wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
* Tim Watts wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
*Tim Watts wrote:

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better
class of fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's
"unsinkability" by under-fitting lifeboats and generally acting like
nobs from the piloting style (full steam at night despite iceberg
warnings and no radar) until the end (officers did not know the safe
person compliment of a lifeboat and launched many half empty).

You mean they knew they had no radar ?

No, I mean they had no radar - something people tend to take for granted
these days...

they had none because it wasn't invented. *w

Oh yes it was...

http://www.radarworld.org/huelsmeyer.html

Terry Fields- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only worked on metal, not ice.

On May 2, 5:24*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:21:39 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
BTW - death or no death impending, I would not have wanted to be near
the furnace rooms when they flooded! I'll take drowing and/or
hypothermia over being steamed to death...

I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse the fires before
that stage. Certainly Jack Phillips, the Titanics radio operator, was
sending messages that he couldn't read other stations due to steam
and air noise.



How exactly does one do that?
It's on a par with "opening the seacocks"

On May 2, 7:35*pm, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...



hugh wrote:

The Titanics initial design unsinkability was destroyed by removing
bulkheads to create a massive uninterrupted deck.

I'll just clarify that I don't think the design was "unsinkable" (unlike,
say, a foam filled canoe) - just "very good". It did hold up for quite a
while despite having some bloody big holes ripped in it...

Yes, but, as Hugh says, it differed from the original design because it
was felt that the First Class passengers wouldn't appreciate the
bulkheads intruding into 'their' space.

Thus the water was able to flow over the tops of the bulkheads and that
is why she sank.

So, the answer to WHO sank the Titanic is the Marketing Department of
the White Star Line ...

--

Terry

The Britannic (sister ship) which had all the improvements fitted sank
in less than an hour.
Some water tight doors could not be closed and portholes had been left
open.

On May 2, 7:48*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:
So, the answer to WHO sank the Titanic is the Marketing Department of
the White Star Line ...

And her sister ship the Britannic sank in 1916 because the crew were too
lazy to close the watertight doors in the bulkheads or climb up a couple
of decks every time they wanted to go from one end of the bilge to the
other. After the explosion when she either hit a mine or was torpedoed,
the watertight doors below the waterline wouldn't close, but if they had
already been closed, she would not have sunk.

--
The watertight doors were electrically operated and closed from the
bridge.
All ships have doors in the bulkheads. Impossible to operate without
them.
But they failed to work in some cases on the Britanic

Portholes were left open by passenger it was a hot climate.

In Titanic, they were closed, it was cold.

On May 3, 1:14*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Iain Freely" wrote in message

...





In message , "dennis@home"
writes

"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been thousands
dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

The F_cktard strikes again!

The wind didn't blow it there, it was manoeuvred under power!

You need to find the facts.
It lost all power and was blown back onto the shore.



They did launch lifeboats and thousands would not have died because it
sank in shallow water!

It came to a stop where the water was about 300 feet deep.
if it had gone down there they would have all died.
It didn't launch enough life boats to hold more than about 25% of the souls
on board.
In fact it didn't even have enough life boats to hold more than about 80% of
those onboard.



On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from certain
death.

Thousands were not saved from certain death, 1,514 passengers died and
only 710 passengers were saved.

Get your facts right!

You can talk, you don't have a clue about the Costa Concordia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Britannic was fitted with cranes instead of davits. It could
launch any life boats on either side in any degree of list.

harry wrote
dennis@home wrote
Iain Freely wrote
dennis@home wrote
Gary wrote

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash
in its side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.

If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have
been thousands dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

The F_cktard strikes again!

The wind didn't blow it there, it was manoeuvred under power!

You need to find the facts.
It lost all power and was blown back onto the shore.

They did launch lifeboats and thousands would
not have died because it sank in shallow water!

It came to a stop where the water was about 300 feet deep.
if it had gone down there they would have all died.

It didn't launch enough life boats to hold more than about
25% of the souls on board. In fact it didn't even have enough
life boats to hold more than about 80% of those onboard.

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from
certain death.

Thousands were not saved from certain death, 1,514 passengers died and
only 710 passengers were saved.

Get your facts right!

You can talk, you don't have a clue about the Costa Concordia.

The Britannic was fitted with cranes instead of davits.

Yes.

It could launch any life boats on either side in any degree of list.

Wrong, most obviously if its capsised.

On May 4, 7:51*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
harry wrote





dennis@home wrote
Iain Freely wrote
dennis@home wrote
Gary wrote
Have people learned nothing from Titanic.
the obvious answer is no.
Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash
in its side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have
been thousands dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.
The F_cktard strikes again!
The wind didn't blow it there, it was manoeuvred under power!
You need to find the facts.
It lost all power and was blown back onto the shore.
They did launch lifeboats and thousands would
not have died because it sank in shallow water!
It came to a stop where the water was about 300 feet deep.
if it had gone down there they would have all died.
It didn't launch enough life boats to hold more than about
25% of the souls on board. In fact it didn't even have enough
life boats to hold more than about 80% of those onboard.
On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from
certain death.
Thousands were not saved from certain death, 1,514 passengers died and
only 710 passengers were saved.
Get your facts right!
You can talk, you don't have a clue about the Costa Concordia.
The Britannic was fitted with cranes instead of davits.

Yes.

It could launch any *life boats on either side in any degree of list.

Wrong, most obviously if its capsised.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Capsised is not list oaf.

Everything reflects electromagnetic waves; it's a matter of degree.
Metal ships gave the longest range.

I can't find a figure for the Radar Cross Section of icebergs, but
there will be one, and it's quite possible that against such a target
the Huelsmeyer device might have given superior performance to the
lookouts.

Let's crunch some numbers.

The radar range equation trades range and RCS, all other factors
remaining the same for any one installation. But range is at the
inverse fourth power, while RCS is a straight factor.

If the RCS of the iceberg was 1/1000th that of a ship (and I believe
it may be more than that) then the detection range would be reduced to
533m for the original Huelsmeyer device, or 1778m for the improved
device, which doubtless the Titanic would have been carrying.


Yes but due to the very irregular shape of the berg and the scatter from
that?. I'd expect his receiver may well not been sensitive enough but
we'll never know now, and seeing that no one had quite cottoned on to
the potential that radio had for safety.. I doubt radar would have been
in their mindset...

Evidence suggests that the lookouts saw the iceberg at about 500m, and
at the speed it was travelling Titanic could come to a stop in 850m.

Terry Fields

Which was the stupid thing they we're doing. Note the Carpathia coming
to the rescue dodging the bregs whilst the Titanic was warned it carried
on at a too high rate of knots.

Who was to blame?, only the one man the Captain Mr Smith;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 3 May 2012 22:44:09 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse the fires
before
that stage. Certainly Jack Phillips, the Titanics radio operator,
was
sending messages that he couldn't read other stations due to steam
and air noise.

How exactly does one do that?
It's on a par with "opening the seacocks"

The boilers would have safety valves which no doubt vent somewhere
safely. Manually open them? Or far more likely have another valve
that opens to a safe vent. Dousing the fires might be slightly more
tricky due to thermal shock on the cast iron parts and not wanting to
produce too much steam that the flues/funnels couldn't cope with.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Terry Casey wrote:


So, the answer to WHO sank the Titanic is the Marketing Department of
the White Star Line ...


I caught the end of a Radio 4 documentary in which it was claimed a major
contributory factor was that the sailor at the wheel was experienced in
steerage systems that required the wheel to be turned in the opposite
direction to that used by the system on the Titanic. Anyone else heard of
this?

This describes the theory better than me:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11390144

Mike

On Fri, 4 May 2012 00:13:33 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Capsised is not list oaf.

No, Rod is the list oaf.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:12:08 +0100, "Muddymike"
wrote:

I caught the end of a Radio 4 documentary in which it was claimed a major
contributory factor was that the sailor at the wheel was experienced in
steerage systems that required the wheel to be turned in the opposite
direction to that used by the system on the Titanic. Anyone else heard of
this?

Yes, it was arse for elbow to what we know it as now and for the last
century. One of those bloody stupid things that carried on in the face
of any logic for too long.

On May 4, 10:53*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 22:44:09 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse the fires
before
that stage. Certainly Jack Phillips, the Titanics radio operator,
was
sending messages that he couldn't read other stations due to steam
and air noise.

How exactly does one do that?
It's on a par with "opening the seacocks"

The boilers would have safety valves which no doubt vent somewhere
safely. Manually open them? Or far more likely have another valve
that opens to a safe vent. Dousing the fires might be slightly more
tricky due to thermal shock on the cast iron parts and not wanting to
produce too much steam that the flues/funnels couldn't cope with.


..
There are safety valves. They would lift if the engines stopped. They
do not vent to the funnels.

But there's no way you would want to remove tons of water at steam
temperature. It is the ultimate catastrophy for a steamboiler. The
furnace tubes would overheat and collapse in minutes.

And how would you "douse the fires"? You would close the dampers but
the fires would take hours to burn the tons of coal in there.

Dunno why you ramble on about topics you have zero knowledge about.