Text 14107, 59 rader
Skriven 2005-10-04 00:17:02 av Ward Dossche
     Kommentar till en text av Björn Forsström
Ärende: Re: Katrina
===================
Björn,
 
> I've just visited the official Titanic Nordic site and new discoverys say
> that
> the rivets were all (3 millions) of a lousy quality and busted to quick.
 
There's nothing new about that as broken rivets as well as small plates that
broke off from the hull were hauled to the surface by the company which holds
the salvage-rights to the wreck.
 
Metallurgic research revealed that there was an unusual high sulphur-content in
those bolts and plates which made them brittle under low temperatures. Let us
not forget that the seawater near Titanic was only a few degrees Celsius, just
above freezing. One of the problems which confronted Captain Edwards was the
condition of the fresh-water supply which was kept in tanks near the keel, the
fear existed that it could actually freeze.
 
When Titanic hit the iceberg it wasn't ripped open, but it simply cracked-upen
due to inferior building-materials used.
 
I wish to comment on 2 other elements, being the "large gash theory" and the
"coal-explosion theory".
 
First the "large gash". Had there been one then no-one would have survived
because the vessel would have sunk in a matter of perhaps 10 minutes. Look at
Lusitania where there was a single torpedo-hole measuring about 3 meter in
diameter (about 10 feet) and it went down in about 20 minutes.
 
As for a "coal explosion", that's so improbable it hardly is worth devoting
time to it. A number of prerequisites are not fullfilled:
 
a) there is a need for a strong concussion swirling-up coal-dust in the bunkers
and compressing the air/coal-mixture violently to cause an explosion, a bit the
principle of a diesel-engine. There never was a concussion.
 
b) the air/coal-mixture requires requires a quite specific mix of coal-dust
versus the amount of air. Titanic's bunkers were roughly 3/4 full with coal
when she went down meaning there was not anough dust to be stirred-up in order
to get an explosive mixture. The reason why there was so much coal on board was
to allow for quicker and cheaper bunkering of coal in New York ... American
coal was too expensive and this way the vessel could be turned-around in New
York and be on its way in less than 48 hours as demonstrated by the sisterships
Olympic and Britannic.
 
> Nothing about an explosion in the engine room as I've seen in
> documentarys.
 
Indeed, there could not have been one as the ship kept-up steam until very late
in the sinking-process. Generators kept supplying electricity and with an
explosion in the engine-room and/or boilers there would have been a dark from
very early on and no half-way famous Marconi-transmissions.
 
No explosion(s) have been reported by the few people that made it up from the
engine-room and stoking-positions deep down near the keel.
 
 \%/@rd

--- DB 1.58/001877
 * Origin: "Leonard will be free" - http://www.leonardpeltier.org (2:292/854)