On 04/05/2012 17:59, harry wrote:
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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever
to be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.
Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to
their problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as
quickly as possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed
to run pumps or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

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

No comment.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote
harry wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
harry wrote

I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse the fires
beforethat 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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever to
be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.

Dunno, given that it was supposed to be unsinkable, and brand new,
its much more likely that they would have been hoping that it really
was unsinkable and that they would be used again eventually.

Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to their
problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as quickly as
possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed to run pumps
or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

Sure, but its likely they would have tried to avoid ruining them
completely so they would have had to be replaced if it hadn't sunk.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

Where they would have produced quite a bit of steam when the water came in.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:33:31 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

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.

It was a hangover from steering vessels with a tiller where the end
of the tiller is pushed the opposite way to the direction you wish the
vessel to go. Despite what influence of steering by tiller orders had
in the Titanic situation it was not till the 1930's that the UK
authorities passed an act that dealt with the anomaly,the United
States did so about the same time. It does seem to have lasted beyond
what would be expected.
It was one of those things that the Cameron 1997 film for all it's
faults depicted correctly though many viewers thought it was a film
blooper at the time.

G.Harman

G

On Fri, 04 May 2012 19:45:00 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 17:59, harry wrote:
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.
.
There are safety valves. They would lift if the engines stopped. They
do not vent to the funnels.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.


You would also have Boiler blow down valves which normally discharge
the water rather than steam first. In normal circumstance the outlet
is normally below the water line.
Ships chief engineers especially Geordie ones have an implant that
often makes them arrogant self righteous gits. I had a barney with one
when he accused me of not fully filling fresh water boiler feed tanks
on one ship before a voyage. Fortunately we got to the next port just.
Before we left I got him to witness the tank soundings himself,again
it was used rapidly so he checked a few things. Boiler blowdown was
leaking and the cock through the hull was as well. Did he
apologise,did he heck .
However in later years when he moaned about the cost of fresh water
when we had a good deck scrub in Port the retort "well when we throw
it over the side at least we know we are doing it " was enough for him
to scuttle away with a face like thunder.

G.Harman

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote
harry wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
harry wrote

I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse the fires
beforethat 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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever to
be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.

Dunno, given that it was supposed to be unsinkable, and brand new,
its much more likely that they would have been hoping that it really
was unsinkable and that they would be used again eventually.

Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to their
problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as quickly as
possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed to run pumps
or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

Sure, but its likely they would have tried to avoid ruining them
completely so they would have had to be replaced if it hadn't sunk.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

Where they would have produced quite a bit of steam when the water came
in.

Really?

"harry" wrote in message
...
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 capsized.

Capsised is not list

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Not only couldn't it launch any lifeboat in that particular situation,
it also cant launch those on the other side of the funnels with some
lists either, because the funnels get in the way, stupid.

On May 4, 7:45*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/05/2012 17:59, harry wrote:





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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever
to be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.
Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to
their problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as
quickly as possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed
to run pumps or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.



You got to be mental.
How are you going to rake out almost a hundred tons of white hot coal
onto the boilerhouse floor without burning your self to a cinder,
setting fire to the bunkers and gassing your self?

Exactly how would you do it?

What would be the point in any case?

Have you ever even seen a coal fired steam boiler in operation?

On May 4, 8:34*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Nightjar wrote





harry wrote
Dave Liquorice *wrote
harry wrote
I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse the fires
beforethat 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.
They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.
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.
I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever to
be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.

Dunno, given that it was supposed to be unsinkable, and brand new,
its much more likely that they would have been hoping that it really
was unsinkable and that they would be used again eventually.

Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to their
problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as *quickly as
possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed to run pumps
or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

Sure, but its likely they would have tried to avoid ruining them
completely so they would have had to be replaced if it hadn't sunk.

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.
The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

Where they would have produced quite a bit of steam when the water came in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How does cold water cause a steam explosion?

On May 5, 12:43*am, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 19:45:00 +0100, Nightjar





wrote:
On 04/05/2012 17:59, harry wrote:
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.
.
* There are safety valves. They would lift if the engines stopped. They
do not vent to the funnels.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

You would also have Boiler blow down valves which normally discharge
the water rather than steam first. In normal circumstance the outlet
is normally below the water line.
Ships chief engineers especially Geordie ones have an implant that
often makes them arrogant self righteous gits. I had a barney with one
when he accused me of not fully filling fresh water boiler feed tanks
on one ship before a voyage. Fortunately we got to the next port just.
Before we left I got him to witness the tank soundings himself,again
it was used rapidly so he checked a few things. Boiler blowdown was
leaking and the cock through the hull was as well. Did he
apologise,did he heck .
However in later years when he moaned about the cost of fresh water
when we had a good deck scrub in Port the retort "well when we throw
it over the side at least we know we are doing it " was enough for him
to scuttle away with a face like thunder.

G.Harman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are fullof ****. Steam powered ships don't buy water. Do you
think it's like a caravan?

Ships distill sea water for cold water make up. In fact it is
distilled twice for the boilers and one for the crew.

Most of the boiler feedwater comes from the condensers where the
exhaust steam from the engines goes.

On May 5, 1:36*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





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 capsized.
Capsised is not list

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Not only couldn't it launch any lifeboat in that particular situation,
it also cant launch those on the other side of the funnels with some
lists either, because the funnels get in the way, stupid.- Hide quoted text -


Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Br...design_changes


You can see the cranes on this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMHS_Britannic.jpg

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote
harry wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
harry wrote

I'd assume that they would vent the steam and douse
the fires beforethat 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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had
easing gear, which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever
to be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.

Dunno, given that it was supposed to be unsinkable, and brand new,
its much more likely that they would have been hoping that it really
was unsinkable and that they would be used again eventually.

Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to
their
problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as quickly
as
possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed to run
pumps
or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

Sure, but its likely they would have tried to avoid ruining them
completely so they would have had to be replaced if it hadn't sunk.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

Where they would have produced quite a bit of steam when the water came
in.-

How does cold water cause a steam explosion?

I never said anything about any steam explosion.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 1:36 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





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 capsized.
Capsised is not list

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Not only couldn't it launch any lifeboat in that particular situation,
it also cant launch those on the other side of the funnels with some
lists either, because the funnels get in the way, stupid.- -


Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Br...design_changes

Which says precisely what I said about the funnels, ****wit.

Which might just be because that's where I got the funnel story from,
****wit.

You can see the cranes on this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMHS_Britannic.jpg

Which show that they cant get the lifeboats from the other side of the
funnels, ****wit.

En el artículo
roups.com, harry escribió:

Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?

Yep. Rod Speed FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On May 4, 8:34 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Nightjar wrote





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


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.
The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

Where they would have produced quite a bit of steam when the water came
in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How does cold water cause a steam explosion?



Try pouring water onto some hot coals.

Mike

"Muddymike" wrote in message
om...
On May 4, 8:34 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Nightjar wrote





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


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.
The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

Where they would have produced quite a bit of steam when the water came
in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How does cold water cause a steam explosion?



Try pouring water onto some hot coals.

You've mangled the attributions very badly.

http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0044000.pdf

The Huelsmeyer device is thought to have worked at 40 to 50cm
wavelength while S-band is 10cm. The RRE has a factor of wavelength
squared, so the drop in RCS with wavelength will be 4 squared or 12dB.
In the reference above the RCS of icebergs is at worst 20dB less that
the same sized ship. So, the losses due to the reflectivity of ice,
and the longer wavelength used, add up to 32 dB, very close to the
value I assumed (1/1000 or 30dB down). It still means the improved
device would have detected the iceberg in plenty of time, and the
original device may have given enough warning to turn sooner and avoid
even the glancing blow.


Snipped a bit...

Interesting what you can find on the net eh;-?..

Still in practice they would for a fair bit of the time would have had
to cope with "clutter" thats the misc odd reflections off the tops of
waves etc and I rather doubt that was sophisticated enough in those days
for that. Course a WW2 bomber of a convenient wingspan flying up in the
clear another matter and several years on..

Interesting all the same I'll have a look at that paper later when SWMBO
has calmed down about what I should be doing on a Bank Holiday
weekend;!...

Question.. do they use radar specifically for iceberg detection
nowadays?..

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.

Indeed so many small things could have made this outcome rather
different. Do you know if they had a phone from the crows nest or had to
shout down to the bridge or even worse climb down?. I read that they
didn't have binoculars with seems bloody stupid squared..


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;!...

Especially considering the wealth of information available to him via
the wireless.

Terry Fields

--
Tony Sayer

On 05/05/2012 06:49, harry wrote:
On May 4, 7:45 pm, wrote:
On 04/05/2012 17:59, harry wrote:





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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever
to be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.
Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to
their problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as
quickly as possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed
to run pumps or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.



You got to be mental.
How are you going to rake out almost a hundred tons of white hot coal
onto the boilerhouse floor without burning your self to a cinder,
setting fire to the bunkers and gassing your self?

Titanic had 159 fire holes, each consuming around 4 cwt of coal per hour
at full power or around 3 cwt per hour at normal cruising power. Only
two out of six boiler rooms were at immediate risk of flooding, so the
task is nothing like as massive as you would like to imply.

Exactly how would you do it?

I would pass the order to the black gang, who would do the actual work.
Raking out is a normal procedure when fires need to be cleaned and a
recognised emergency procedure in situations like this.

What would be the point in any case?

I would have thought that obvious - to stop steam being generated in the
boilers under risk of flooding.

Have you ever even seen a coal fired steam boiler in operation?

There are people who have not?

Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2012 11:42, Terry Fields wrote:
....
I'm mildly surprised that Titanic didn't have a Heulsmeyer device -
the radio was up-to-date and little money seems to have been spared
elsewhere.

Heulsmeyer didn't manage to get anyone interested in his device, so it
never went into production and so would not have been available.

Marconi provided the radio equipment for Titanic and they did not take
much interest in radio location until the 1920s. Even then it was not
until SS Normandie entered service in 1935 that any ship had radio location.

Colin Bignell

On May 5, 8:25*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo
roups.com, harry escribió:



Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?

Yep. Rod Speed FAQ:http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

About sums him up.

On 05/05/2012 06:51, harry wrote:
How does cold water cause a steam explosion?

The thermal shock of the cold water hitting the inside of the firebox
causes the metal to shatter.

Andy

On May 5, 12:05*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 05/05/2012 06:49, harry wrote:





On May 4, 7:45 pm, *wrote:
On 04/05/2012 17:59, harry wrote:

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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever
to be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship..
Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to
their problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as
quickly as possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed
to run pumps or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

You got to be mental.
How are you going to rake out almost a hundred tons of white hot coal
onto the boilerhouse floor without burning your self to a cinder,
setting fire to the bunkers and gassing your self?

Titanic had 159 fire holes, each consuming around 4 cwt of coal per hour
at full power or around 3 cwt per hour at normal cruising power. Only
two out of six boiler rooms were at immediate risk of flooding, so the
task is nothing like as massive as you would like to imply.

Exactly how would you do it?

I would pass the order to the black gang, who would do the actual work.
Raking out is a normal procedure when fires need to be cleaned and a
recognised emergency procedure in situations like this.

The consumption of coal is neither here nor there as to the quantity
of coal in the furnace. But it used 825tons/day

Absolute nonsense. Boilers are never "raked out". And even if it
were, why would the coal stop burning?
They are "sliced" to encourage the ash to fall through the grates.
Nobody believed the ship was going to sink. By the time it was
apparent,no-one would be worrying about the fate of the boilers.

"Black gang"??? Who are they?

I was responsible (managerially) for steam boilers for thirty odd
years.
And I have hand fired steam boilers too..

On May 5, 8:12*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On May 5, 1:36 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....

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 capsized.
Capsised is not list

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Not only couldn't it launch any lifeboat in that particular situation,
it also cant launch those on the other side of the funnels with some
lists either, because the funnels get in the way, stupid.- -

Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Br...design_changes

Which says precisely what I said about the funnels, ****wit.

Which might just be because that's where I got the funnel story from,
****wit.

You can see the cranes on this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMHS_Britannic.jpg

Which show that they cant get the lifeboats from the other side of the
funnels, ****wit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously you are illiterate as well as stupid.

"A more obvious external change was the fitting of large crane-like
davits, each capable of holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats
could be stored within reach of the davits on the deckhouse roof, and
in an emergency the davits could even reach lifeboats on the other
side of the vessel. The aim of this design was to enable all the
lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship developed a list that would
normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side opposite to the
list."

Quoted from the link I gave you

harry wrote:


I was responsible (managerially) for steam boilers for thirty odd
years.

he was a stoker!

And I have hand fired steam boilers too..

I bet I know what sort of 'boilers' those were, too.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"harry" wrote in message
...

8

Obviously you are illiterate as well as stupid.

"A more obvious external change was the fitting of large crane-like
davits, each capable of holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats
could be stored within reach of the davits on the deckhouse roof, and
in an emergency the davits could even reach lifeboats on the other
side of the vessel. The aim of this design was to enable all the
lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship developed a list that would
normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side opposite to the
list."

Quoted from the link I gave you

You appear to have missed a bit from the paragraph
"However, several of these davits were placed abreast of funnels, defeating
that purpose."

On 05/05/2012 17:24, harry wrote:
On May 5, 12:05 pm,
wrote:
On 05/05/2012 06:49, harry wrote:





On May 4, 7:45 pm, wrote:
On 04/05/2012 17:59, harry wrote:

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.

They vented up the side of the funnel and would have had easing gear,
which allowed them to be opened manually.

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.

I doubt that any of the engineers would have expected the boilers ever
to be needed again, once they saw the extent of the damage to the ship.
Boiler rooms 5 and 6 were at risk from the flooding and cold sea water
hitting a boiler under pressure would cause an explosion, to add to
their problems. It was vital to reduce pressure in those boilers as
quickly as possible, hence the venting. In fact, all boilers not needed
to run pumps or dynamos would probably have have had an emergency shut down.

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.

The fires would have been raked out onto the boiler room floor.

You got to be mental.
How are you going to rake out almost a hundred tons of white hot coal
onto the boilerhouse floor without burning your self to a cinder,
setting fire to the bunkers and gassing your self?

Titanic had 159 fire holes, each consuming around 4 cwt of coal per hour
at full power or around 3 cwt per hour at normal cruising power. Only
two out of six boiler rooms were at immediate risk of flooding, so the
task is nothing like as massive as you would like to imply.

Exactly how would you do it?

I would pass the order to the black gang, who would do the actual work.
Raking out is a normal procedure when fires need to be cleaned and a
recognised emergency procedure in situations like this.

The consumption of coal is neither here nor there as to the quantity
of coal in the furnace. But it used 825tons/day

825 tons per day was the maximum rate of use and equates to 4 cwt per
hour per fire.

Absolute nonsense. Boilers are never "raked out".

Evidently, you don't know a great deal about marine boilers. At the end
of each watch, one fire in each boiler would be cleaned out. This
involved winging over any good coals to one half of the fire hole, the
fireman raking out all the ash and clinkers onto the deck from the half
without coals and the trimmers dousing them in sea water, either with a
hose or from buckets. The good coals are then winged over to the half
that has just been cleaned and the other half is raked out in the same
way. There would be fumes, steam and fly ash everywhere while this was
going on. The good coals are then spread evenly and topped up with green
coal.

Raking out the entire fire, including burning coals, was an emergency
measure that would only be done in a situation such as when flooding was
expected in the boiler room.

And even if it
were, why would the coal stop burning?

It wouldn't, until quenched with sea water.

They are "sliced" to encourage the ash to fall through the grates.

That, like pricking and levelling, is simply part of routine fire
maintenance.

Nobody believed the ship was going to sink.

I doubt that was true of the people working on trying to stop it
happening. However, what they would certainly have known was that boiler
rooms 5 and 6 were in immediate danger of flooding and that if sea water
reached the boilers while they were still under pressure, they would
explode.

By the time it was
apparent,no-one would be worrying about the fate of the boilers.

There wouldn't be anything else to occupy the down below men, assuming
they had not already been killed by escaping steam or sliding machinery.
They would know they were not going to get out.

"Black gang"??? Who are they?

That only emphasises my comment about your lack of knowledge of marine
boilers. It was what the firemen and trimmers were called, even into the
days of oil.

I was responsible (managerially) for steam boilers for thirty odd
years.
And I have hand fired steam boilers too..

Presumably not marine boilers.

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 4 May 2012 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


However in later years when he moaned about the cost of fresh water
when we had a good deck scrub in Port the retort "well when we throw
it over the side at least we know we are doing it " was enough for him
to scuttle away with a face like thunder.

G.Harman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are fullof ****. Steam powered ships don't buy water. Do you
think it's like a caravan?
you think Port authorities supply it for free?

Ships distill sea water for cold water make up. In fact it is
distilled twice for the boilers and one for the crew.
Ones that go deep sea and on long voyages will do that,but it cost
extra fuel. A coastal vessel will not be constructed with such
equipment

Most of the boiler feedwater comes from the condensers where the
exhaust steam from the engines goes.
Condensers cannot create water and only condense what is returned to
them. losses from glands or in some cases deck machinery which is only
occasionally operated like a capstan and doesn't return steam back
have to be made up from reserves.
If it's a large quantity a pump will be used but another method just
to top up a little is to let the condenser vacuum suck in a small
quantity. This is what happened on this occasion,if it had been the
pump the oily rag would have noticed, because it was the vacuum make
up it was not noticed till i told him the tank was dropping quicker
than it should. which is when he accused me of not filling it.

G.Harman

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 8:12 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On May 5, 1:36 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

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 capsized.
Capsised is not list

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Not only couldn't it launch any lifeboat in that particular situation,
it also cant launch those on the other side of the funnels with some
lists either, because the funnels get in the way, stupid.- -

Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Br...design_changes

Which says precisely what I said about the funnels, ****wit.

Which might just be because that's where I got the funnel story from,
****wit.

You can see the cranes on this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMHS_Britannic.jpg

Which show that they cant get the lifeboats from the other side of the
funnels, ****wit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously you are illiterate as well as stupid.

We'll see...

"A more obvious external change was the fitting of large crane-like
davits, each capable of holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats
could be stored within reach of the davits on the deckhouse roof, and
in an emergency the davits could even reach lifeboats on the other
side of the vessel. The aim of this design was to enable all the
lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship developed a list that would
normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side opposite to the
list."

Quoted from the link I gave you

Pity about

" Post-Titanic design changes

"Following the loss of the Titanic and the subsequent inquiries, several
design changes were made to the remaining Olympic-class liners. With
Britannic, these changes were made before launching. (Olympic was
refitted on her return to Harland and Wolff.) The main changes included
the introduction of a double hull along the engine and boiler rooms and
raising six out of the 15 watertight bulkheads up to 'B' Deck. A more
obvious
external change was the fitting of large crane-like davits, each capable of
holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats could be stored within reach of
the davits on the deckhouse roof, and in an emergency the davits could
even reach lifeboats on the other side of the vessel. The aim of this design
was to enable all the lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship developed
a list that would normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side
opposite to the list. However, several of these davits were placed abreast
of funnels, defeating that purpose.[2] Similar davits were not fitted to
Olympic"

you flagrantly dishonest selective quoting ****wit.

On May 5, 8:42*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On May 5, 8:12 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....

On May 5, 1:36 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

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 capsized.
Capsised is not list

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Not only couldn't it launch any lifeboat in that particular situation,
it also cant launch those on the other side of the funnels with some
lists either, because the funnels get in the way, stupid.- -

Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Br...design_changes

Which says precisely what I said about the funnels, ****wit.

Which might just be because that's where I got the funnel story from,
****wit.

You can see the cranes on this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMHS_Britannic.jpg

Which show that they cant get the lifeboats from the other side of the
funnels, ****wit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Obviously you are illiterate as well as stupid.

We'll see...

"A more obvious external change was the fitting of large crane-like
davits, each capable of holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats
could be stored within reach of the davits on the deckhouse roof, and
in an emergency the davits could even reach lifeboats on the other
side of the vessel. The aim of this design was to enable all the
lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship developed a list that would
normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side opposite to the
list."

Quoted from the link I gave you

Pity about

" Post-Titanic design changes

"Following the loss of the Titanic and the subsequent inquiries, several
design changes were made to the remaining Olympic-class liners. With
Britannic, these changes were made before launching. (Olympic was
refitted on her return to Harland and Wolff.) The main changes included
the introduction of a double hull along the engine and boiler rooms and
raising six out of the 15 watertight bulkheads up to 'B' Deck. A more
obvious
external change was the fitting of large crane-like davits, each capable of
holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats could be stored within reach of
the davits on the deckhouse roof, and in an emergency the davits could
even reach lifeboats on the other side of the vessel. The aim of this design
was to enable all the lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship developed
a list that would normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side
opposite to the list. However, several of these davits were placed abreast
of funnels, defeating that purpose.[2] Similar davits were not fitted to
Olympic"

you flagrantly dishonest selective quoting ****wit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I think you denied they ever existed which was the point.

On May 5, 6:53*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



However in later years when he moaned about the cost of fresh water
when we had a good deck scrub in Port the retort "well when we throw
it over the side at least we know we are doing it " was enough for him
to scuttle away with a face like thunder.

G.Harman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are fullof ****. *Steam powered ships don't buy water. Do you
think it's like a caravan?

you think Port authorities supply it for free?

Ships distill sea water for cold water make up. *In fact it is
distilled twice for the boilers and one for the crew.

Ones that go deep sea and on long voyages will do that,but it cost
extra fuel. A *coastal vessel will not be constructed with such
equipment

Most of the boiler feedwater comes from the condensers where the
exhaust steam from the engines goes.

Condensers cannot create water and only condense what is returned to
them. losses from glands or in some cases deck machinery which is only
occasionally operated like a capstan and doesn't return steam back
have to be made up from reserves.
If it's a large quantity a pump will be used but another method just
to top up a little is to let the condenser vacuum suck in a small
quantity. *This is what happened on this occasion,if it had been the
pump the oily rag would have noticed, because it was the vacuum make
up it was not noticed till i told him the tank was dropping quicker
than it should. which is when he accused me of not filling it.

G.Harman

All steam powered vessels make their own fresh water, they can do it
far cheaper than buying it. Especially in the days of coal.
The water is guaranteed pure, unlike from some dodgy foreign port
sources. The Titanic was hardly a coaster either.
And bought water would need more boiler water treatment than
distilled water adding even more expense.
Absolutely no reason to buy water.

There, I've found you something to read onthe topic.
http://www.brighthub.com/engineering...les/29189.aspx

The only stuff raked out from the boiler in hand fired boiers is ash
from beneath the grate.
If the coal was undesireable quality (high silicon), there could be a
clinkering problem and then the fire has to be turned and clinker
raked out.
But not burning fuel, the stokers would be gassed.

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
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 capsized.
Capsised is not list

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Not only couldn't it launch any lifeboat in that particular
situation,
it also cant launch those on the other side of the funnels with
some
lists either, because the funnels get in the way, stupid.- -

Thick as **** and twice as nasty that's you innit?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Br...design_changes

Which says precisely what I said about the funnels, ****wit.

Which might just be because that's where I got the funnel story from,
****wit.

You can see the cranes on this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMHS_Britannic.jpg

Which show that they cant get the lifeboats from the other side of the
funnels, ****wit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Obviously you are illiterate as well as stupid.

We'll see...

"A more obvious external change was the fitting of large crane-like
davits, each capable of holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats
could be stored within reach of the davits on the deckhouse roof, and
in an emergency the davits could even reach lifeboats on the other
side of the vessel. The aim of this design was to enable all the
lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship developed a list that would
normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side opposite to the
list."

Quoted from the link I gave you

Pity about

" Post-Titanic design changes

"Following the loss of the Titanic and the subsequent inquiries, several
design changes were made to the remaining Olympic-class liners. With
Britannic, these changes were made before launching. (Olympic was
refitted on her return to Harland and Wolff.) The main changes included
the introduction of a double hull along the engine and boiler rooms and
raising six out of the 15 watertight bulkheads up to 'B' Deck. A more
obvious
external change was the fitting of large crane-like davits, each capable
of
holding six lifeboats. Additional lifeboats could be stored within reach
of
the davits on the deckhouse roof, and in an emergency the davits could
even reach lifeboats on the other side of the vessel. The aim of this
design
was to enable all the lifeboats to be launched, even if the ship
developed
a list that would normally prevent lifeboats being launched on the side
opposite to the list. However, several of these davits were placed
abreast
of funnels, defeating that purpose.[2] Similar davits were not fitted to
Olympic"

you flagrantly dishonest selective quoting ****wit.-

I think you denied they ever existed

Everyone can see for themselves that I never ever did anything of the sort.

ALL I did was rub your stupid pig ignorant nose in the FACT that those
cranes
didn't in fact work at any degree of list, most obviously when capsised.

which was the point.

Wrong, as always.

I'm not sure that sea-clutter would have been a problem, for two
reasons. Firstly, the sea was calm, and I believe that the improved
device could be tilted in a vertical direction as a method of
estimating range.

Yes agreed but how often does that happen or is likely to have
happened?. Also the size of the Iceberg concerned?. This one seemingly
was a large one but there is a variable there in that what size of
Iceberg is required to do sufficient damage to the ship -v- size and
likelihood of detection?.

It is very interesting to see in that paper the effects of digital
signal post processing albeit this is for a much longer radar system...


The device could have been used in these circumstances to look
forwards (as that would be the direction of greatest probability of
collision), and tilted upwards so that any sea-clutter just didn't
sound a warning.

In this particular instance yes, it might well have given them a bit
extra time but then again they couldn't organise themselves to have a
simple pair of Binoculars around and as also stated Captain Smith should
have given the command to reduce speed but I suppose he had Ismay
breathing down his neck about "make this a record"... ISTR some Midland
railway driver being urged to go for broke sometime in the 30's or
thereabouts to get a record by a director of same company in the cab!...


Interesting all the same I'll have a look at that paper later when SWMBO
has calmed down about what I should be doing on a Bank Holiday
weekend;!...

You too, eh...

;!(..

Question.. do they use radar specifically for iceberg detection
nowadays?..

The paper mentioned speaks of using two different frequencies in order
to reduce ambiguities, and post-processing to dig out return signals
from under the noise. It's quite an interesting paper!

Indeed!..


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.

Indeed so many small things could have made this outcome rather
different. Do you know if they had a phone from the crows nest or had to
shout down to the bridge or even worse climb down?. I read that they
didn't have binoculars with seems bloody stupid squared..

Yes, bins seem to have been an item that was not properly provisioned.
And due to the Fourth Officer being bumped and mistakenly taking the
key to the bins locker, only one or two pairs were available, none of
which were given to the look-outs.

Always the little things that add together to make the big cock-up event
eh;!?..


They did have a phone, though, and used it.

I'm mildly surprised that Titanic didn't have a Heulsmeyer device -
the radio was up-to-date and little money seems to have been spared
elsewhere.

Prolly there wasn't a perceived need. After all Mr Marconi's device was
there to add novelty it seems in order to give those who could afford it
the chance to show off like today with executive toys and the like etc..

Course this is down a bit to Marconi. Oliver Heaviside was involved in
Marconi's work and whilst he was in it for science and knowledge Marconi
slapped patents on it and made the money being very commercially minded,
other wise Heaviside would have been more credited but that's all
another story!...

Terry Fields

--
Tony Sayer