I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

En el artículo , Vortex12
escribió:

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

My thoughts exactly. An hour of my life I'll never get back.

It would be interesting to know if the team that found and are exploring
the ship have managed to get down to the boiler rooms, which might help
disprove the theory one way or t'other.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

"Vortex12" wrote in message ...

I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the luvvies
clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

Didn't bother to watch it - living near Southampton, I'm bored to death with
the Titanic.
It's a ship.
It sank.
As my mother used to say, worse disasters happen at sea.

On 02/01/2017 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Vortex12
escribió:

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

My thoughts exactly. An hour of my life I'll never get back.

It would be interesting to know if the team that found and are exploring
the ship have managed to get down to the boiler rooms, which might help
disprove the theory one way or t'other.



The sub-standard steel thread of discussion just petered out.

It's curious that sister ship Olympic (made presumably from the same
steel in the same yard) lasted over 25 years before being scrapped.

"Vortex12" wrote in message
...
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the luvvies
clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

Thanks for the heads-up; I can wizz through my recording in no time!
--
Dave W

On 02/01/2017 10:13, Richard wrote:
"Vortex12" wrote in message ...

I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been
a third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

Didn't bother to watch it - living near Southampton, I'm bored to death
with the Titanic.
It's a ship.
It sank.
As my mother used to say, worse disasters happen at sea.


And in Barnsley they still bang on about pit disasters:-) Twas the Oaks
disasters 150th anniversary last month.

So it was coal that sunk the Titanic? Was it Barnsley coal?, best coal
in the world:-)

You cannot burn incriminating evidence with a WB combi boiler or come up
with excuses at school such as "Sir my Dad was ****ed on Sunday and he
used my homework to light the fire".



--
Adam

On Monday, 2 January 2017 10:49:09 UTC, Vortex12 wrote:
On 02/01/2017 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Vortex12
escribió:

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

My thoughts exactly. An hour of my life I'll never get back.

It would be interesting to know if the team that found and are exploring
the ship have managed to get down to the boiler rooms, which might help
disprove the theory one way or t'other.



The sub-standard steel thread of discussion just petered out.

It's curious that sister ship Olympic (made presumably from the same
steel in the same yard) lasted over 25 years before being scrapped.

Why such a short life?


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 2 January 2017 10:49:09 UTC, Vortex12 wrote:
On 02/01/2017 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Vortex12
escribió:

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have
been a third of the length.

My thoughts exactly. An hour of my life I'll never get back.

It would be interesting to know if the team that found and are
exploring the ship have managed to get down to the boiler rooms,
which might help disprove the theory one way or t'other.



The sub-standard steel thread of discussion just petered out.

It's curious that sister ship Olympic (made presumably from the same
steel in the same yard) lasted over 25 years before being scrapped.

Why such a short life?

According to Wikipedia: Competition from German & French rivals as wellas
the arrival of the "modern" Queen Mary. I also suspewct that by the mid
1930s coal fired boilers wer going out of fashion.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 02/01/2017 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


Ta! I wondered if it was related to the conspiracy theory which says
that the identities of the Titanic and Olympic were swapped, and that it
was actually the Olympic which sank.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 January 2017 10:49:09 UTC, Vortex12 wrote:
On 02/01/2017 08:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Vortex12
escribió:

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been
a
third of the length.

My thoughts exactly. An hour of my life I'll never get back.

It would be interesting to know if the team that found and are
exploring
the ship have managed to get down to the boiler rooms, which might help
disprove the theory one way or t'other.



The sub-standard steel thread of discussion just petered out.

It's curious that sister ship Olympic (made presumably from the same
steel in the same yard) lasted over 25 years before being scrapped.

Why such a short life?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic
Ended up unprofitable due to the Great Depression.

On 02/01/2017 19:24, Roger Mills wrote:

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


Ta! I wondered if it was related to the conspiracy theory which says
that the identities of the Titanic and Olympic were swapped, and that it
was actually the Olympic which sank.


It will be crap rivets next!

--
Adam

On 02/01/2017 20:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:16:50 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 19:24, Roger Mills wrote:

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


Ta! I wondered if it was related to the conspiracy theory which says
that the identities of the Titanic and Olympic were swapped, and that it
was actually the Olympic which sank.


It will be crap rivets next!

Didn't they do that a few years ago? And they showed the rivets were
no different to any of that time.

If she had hit the iceberg head-on, and only stove in the bows, she
would have survived, because fewer compartments would have flooded,
but steering to try and avoid the iceberg was actually her undoing.



I'm just amazed she made to to the moon.

--
Adam

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 07:58:21 -0000, Vortex12 wrote:

I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

Boat fell over, the weakest died, Darwin wins, end of story.

--
Ireland's worst air disaster occurred early this morning when a small two-seater Cessna plane crashed into a cemetery. Irish search and rescue workers have recovered 2826 bodies so far and expect that number to climb as digging continues into the night.

On 1/2/2017 4:33 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).

I switched to something else before it got very technical and my PVR
recording seems to have failed.

Among the things which really annoyed me, if it was really such a raging
fire, why was it not evident from smoke at the top? Presumably the
combustion rate was limited by air access from leaks at the stokers'
hatches? I suppose they didn't flood it with water because of the risks
from hydrogen production. While it was in the dock, could they not have
extinguished it with nitrogen (possibly even carbon dioxide)?

I don't doubt that it could have red hot at the heart of the fire, which
might have been adjacent to a bulkhead but obviously not at the hull
plates. Not convinced about the suggestion that the heat had somehow
made the outer plates prone to cracking.

I thought the current theory was that the bulkheads were "open at the
top", so that they flooded successively, it wasn't necessary for many to
fail.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


I've seen a few Titanic documentaries recently (our little boy is
obsessed with it, for some reason), and several of them mention the
fire. I expect the documentary is claiming that it deserves more emphasis?

On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 11:57:22 UTC, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


I've seen a few Titanic documentaries recently (our little boy is
obsessed with it, for some reason), and several of them mention the
fire. I expect the documentary is claiming that it deserves more emphasis?


I don't see why everyone is so critical of the programme. Yes, it could
have been shorter, but it does seem plausible. I found it interesting.

John

wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 11:57:22 UTC, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


I've seen a few Titanic documentaries recently (our little boy is
obsessed with it, for some reason), and several of them mention the
fire. I expect the documentary is claiming that it deserves more emphasis?


I don't see why everyone is so critical of the programme. Yes, it could
have been shorter, but it does seem plausible. I found it interesting.

John


I would certainly watch it, if I could (I'll watch anything
Titanic-related), but I guess it's too late now :-)

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:22:50 PM UTC, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/01/2017 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


Ta! I wondered if it was related to the conspiracy theory which says
that the identities of the Titanic and Olympic were swapped, and that it
was actually the Olympic which sank.

I wonder if the loons that claim that a coal fire weakened the steel hull of the Titanic are the same loons who claim that a jet fuel fire couldn't weaken the steel beams of the WTC.

En el artículo ,
escribió:

I don't see why everyone is so critical of the programme. Yes, it could
have been shorter

It was the endless repetition of the CGI animations I found irritating.
The whole thing could have been done well in half an hour, but I suppose
C4 have airtime to fill.

And treating your audience as thick grates too.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The Winky article says that IIRC the cast iron rivets were at the limit
of their capabilities,

How does a cast iron rivet work?

--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/01/17 14:36, Halmyre wrote:
I wonder if the loons that claim that a coal fire weakened the steel
hull of the Titanic are the same loons who claim that a jet fuel fire
couldn't weaken the steel beams of the WTC.

A coal fire could of create weakness - not the hull but in the bulkheads
- of a ship.

The hull, unlike the twin towers, is immersed in rather large amount of
cold water.

There is no evidence that any bulkheads were damaged by fire however.

I wonder if the loons that that claim that a coal fire weakened the
steel hull of the Titanic just like a jet fuel fire weakened the steel
beams of the WTC, are the same loons who think that water is dangerously
inflammable, because the Hindenburg was full of hydrogen, and so is water.

Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

There's a good James Cameron documentary out there about Titanic. It's
mostly about what he would change in the film if he did it now (he seems
to have done quite a lot of research before and since the film).
There's a piece at the end where the experts wonder if everyone could be
saved, and there were a few interesting ideas. Someone said they could
have sailed into a nearby floating ice field further north, and everyone
could have stepped out onto that. There were other suggestions I can't
remember, but most interesting was the idea that they could throw all
the lifejackets into the leaking section, and hope that they would keep
it afloat.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have
been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


I've seen a few Titanic documentaries recently (our little boy is
obsessed with it, for some reason), and several of them mention the
fire. I expect the documentary is claiming that it deserves more
emphasis?

Yes, in essence it said that the sinking was accelerated because of the
failure of the weakened bulkhead, which was deformed as described by a
stoker who survived. It would still have sunk, but taken longer. The
bulkhead became brittle where it had been red-hot.


ISTR hearing it had a double-plate bottom, but single-plate sides; and
that the other two ships had double-plate sides fitted afterwards. If
the fire was at a double-plated location, it would not have been cooled
by water. I guess that there would at least have been some very hot
plates and some much cooler ones rivetted together.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
How does a cast iron rivet work?

Wrought iron then. I'm not a metallurgist and I did say "IIRC" above.
This from the Winky article (from which one might conclude that the
question of the rivets is controversial):

The plates in the central 60% of the hull were held together with
triple rows of mild steel rivets, but the plates in the bow and stern
were held together with double rows of wrought iron rivets which were —
according to materials scientists Tim Foecke and Jennifer McCarty —
near their stress limits even before the collision.[45][46] These
"Best" or No. 3 iron rivets had a high level of slag inclusions, making
them more brittle than the more usual "Best-Best" No. 4 iron rivets,
and more prone to snapping when put under stress, particularly in
extreme cold.[47][48] But Tom McCluskie, a retired archivist of Harland
& Wolff, pointed out that Olympic, Titanic's sister ship, was riveted
with the same iron and served without incident for nearly 25 years,
surviving several major collisions, including being rammed by a British
cruiser.[49] When the Olympic rammed and sank the U-boat U-103 with her
bow, the stem was twisted and hull plates on the starboard side were
buckled without impairing the hull's integrity.[49][50]

Thanks for that. I did know there were various grades of steel rivets -
but wondered about cast iron ones. ;-)

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:34:34 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

There were other suggestions I can't
remember, but most interesting was the idea that they could throw all
the lifejackets into the leaking section, and hope that they would keep
it afloat.

They could also have issued the third-class passengers with teaspoons
and told them to bale...


Well, it helps to keep oneself busy, I suppose. It's interesting that
100 years later, in spite of all the modern safety systems, they can
still bugger up something like the Costa Concordia by switching them off.

On Monday, 2 January 2017 10:13:17 UTC, Richard wrote:
"Vortex12" wrote in message ...

I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the luvvies
clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.


Happy New Year campers.

Didn't bother to watch it - living near Southampton, I'm bored to death with
the Titanic.
It's a ship.
It sank.
As my mother used to say, worse disasters happen at sea.

THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERY DAY THOUGH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle...toller#Titanic

In article
,
says...

On 1/2/2017 4:33 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:


I thought the current theory was that the bulkheads were "open at the
top", so that they flooded successively, it wasn't necessary for many to
fail.

Yes. Allegedly the first design for these vessels was for
all the watertight bulkheads to extend to promenade deck
level but the Marketing Department of the White Star Line
vetoed this on the basis that they could not be allowed to
intrude into the public First Class areas. Thus they were
cut down in the central section.

Once the water reached the top of the first of these cut
down bulkheads, the water simply flowed over the top into
the next compartment, and so on.

From this point onwards, the vessel was doomed.

So the Titanic was sunk by the Marketing Department of the
White Star Line!

I've always hated Marketing Departments ...

--

Terry

En el artículo , Dan S. MacAbre
escribió:

they can
still bugger up something like the Costa Concordia by switching them off.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...eb85476ed9ed8e
0c56032f17572ae1c.jpg

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

"Halmyre" wrote in message
...
On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:22:50 PM UTC, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/01/2017 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 02/01/2017 07:58, Vortex12 wrote:
I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.

Talk about over-produced hyped up horse****.

If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have
been a
third of the length.

So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the
luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.

At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.

Happy New Year campers.

'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?

The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress,
and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had
been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea
back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed
enough time for everyone to be saved).


Ta! I wondered if it was related to the conspiracy theory which says
that the identities of the Titanic and Olympic were swapped, and that it
was actually the Olympic which sank.

I wonder if the loons that claim that a coal fire weakened the
steel hull of the Titanic are the same loons who claim that a
jet fuel fire couldn't weaken the steel beams of the WTC.

Different weakness. In the case of the WTC they bent under the weight
and the whole thing imploded. Nothing like that with the Titanic.

In message ,
newshound writes
Among the things which really annoyed me, if it was really such a
raging fire, why was it not evident from smoke at the top? Presumably
the combustion rate was limited by air access from leaks at the
stokers' hatches? I suppose they didn't flood it with water because of
the risks from hydrogen production. While it was in the dock, could
they not have extinguished it with nitrogen (possibly even carbon dioxide)?


I suspect flooding it was no an option.

speculation
I suspect that the opening at the bottom of the bunker wasn't designed
to be either air tight or water tight. Putting water in would have
meant that it would have just flooded out of the bottom into the boiler
room, not a good thing. Likewise pumping in a gas.
/speculation

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 1/3/2017 1:23 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

I don't doubt that it could have red hot at the heart of the fire,
which might have been adjacent to a bulkhead but obviously not at the
hull plates. Not convinced about the suggestion that the heat had
somehow made the outer plates prone to cracking.

The claim was also that the far bunker wall (from the PoV of the
stokers) was indeed the hull. So the hull plates would have been heated
too. Depends where the combustion was, I suppose. The claim was that
the bunker was three stories high and so took a while to empty. The
method of emptying was simply taking the coal out at the bottom as
usual and shoving it into the boiler fire. If the fire was high up, the
bunker take a long time to empty and you might have expected people to
notice a red-hot patch on the hull. If the fire was much lower down, it
would presumably be below sea-level. I don't know what the effect on a
steel plate is if one side is trying to be red hot and the other is
trying to be at -1C (sea temp).

I would bet that boiling seawater won't let the hull reach red heat. I
guess I could do some sums for heat transfer once it was below 100 C,
but the conductivity of coke will be a lot lower than steel, and there
won't be much radiation reaching the steel, or much convection in the
horizontal direction. So the temperature gradient across the hull plates
might be 100 C? Might look at the sums later. Different story for a
bulkhead, if fire is next to that of course.


The claim was also that the reason they continued at full speed was
that they had to burn all this coal = had to make all this steam = had
to shove the steam through the engines. The Winky article has a lot to
say, though, about steam being vented once the ship stopped, so the
boilers wouldn't explode.

I wondered about smoke from the bunker fire, too.

On 1/3/2017 12:35 PM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
wrote:


I would certainly watch it, if I could (I'll watch anything
Titanic-related), but I guess it's too late now :-)

Isn't it on one of the channels with catch-up (i.e. BBC, ITV, C4)?

On 1/3/2017 1:25 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre


Yes, in essence it said that the sinking was accelerated because of the
failure of the weakened bulkhead, which was deformed as described by a
stoker who survived. It would still have sunk, but taken longer. The
bulkhead became brittle where it had been red-hot.

But normally, steel gets more ductile when it is red hot. Yes, there are
thermal ageing processes which may reduce ductility but they are
diffusion limited, and relatively slow (decades at 300 C, for example).

On 02/01/2017 14:51, Tim Streater wrote:

The other point is that those liners were not turbine driven either -
they still used reciprocating engines.

Titanic had both.

Andy

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:21:32 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

I suppose they didn't flood it with water because of
the risks from hydrogen production. While it was in the dock, could
they not have extinguished it with nitrogen (possibly even carbon dioxide)?



But I would speculate that flooding it with nitrogen from the top would
have been enough to do the trick. But you not only have to stop
combustion, you have to cool it down. So nitrogen at around a few C
would be OK (so you're not freezing the steel).

Would nitrogen in easily transportable form and enough quantity to
fill a bunker be available near the dockside in 1912 ?
I suppose next someone will say it could have been brought in
overnight from Germany by air freight.

G.Harman

On 03/01/2017 22:23, Tim Streater wrote:
Yes, so I now read. Well, I spose that if nothing else, I'm learning
more about Edwardian ship construction.

IIRC there's a big model of the engine in the science museum. Or was,
when my kids were small...

Andy