Titanic

[Mock Turtle]

Across history, ships have hit icebergs countless times, and never sank. Because they did know there were icebergs, so they chose a low speed. I can give you numerous examples. After all...that kind of reinforced steel is much more powerful than ice...which is water basically.
Try to break a steel object with a big piece of ice and then let me know

It's the incredible, unimaginable speed that creates the friction.

I'm not sure that the full details of what happened to the Titanic have ever been found. The last documentary I saw suggested the side was ripped open by the iceberg, with incoming water overflowing supposedly watertight compartments so as to cause the sinking. With a fire occurring in the coal supply so as to weaken at least one bulkhead. So the speed would hardly have mattered - apart from an ability as to avoiding the iceberg of course.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's why when I haul machinery, I travel
only 55-60 mph max. Things that go wrong
do so more slowly. Been there & done that.
But the Titanic's problems were manyfold, eg,
- Raging coal bunker fire.
- Poor communication protocols.
- Risky weather conditions ignored.
- Metalurgical defects.
- Lifeboat shortage.
- Poor observation protocols.
- Lax seamanship.

With all due respect, you are an engineer, right?
The experts have ascertained, at that time, that it was the speed that caused the huge damage, causing the friction.
If the ship had been almost stationary, engine off, they would have had all the time in the world to turn.
But even at a slower speed, they probably would have hit the iceberg frontally, but the damage would have been insignificant, like a huge dent.

 

[Stevicus]

It actually was unsinkable. In fact her twin, the Olympic was hit by a warship, while the latter was arriving in the harbor.
The damage was huge, yet it didn't sink, because of the low speed.

I think that sailing in the dark at that abnormal speed, by night, in waters filled with icebergs is suicidal.

With enough damage, any ship can sink. In more recent times, the ships may have been in good shape but human error led to some tragedies: The Worst Maritime Disasters in Modern Time

In some of more recent deadly sinkings, a significant cause was overloading the ship far beyond capacity. That also appears to be the case in some of the tragic sinkings of some migrant ships in recent years. I also recall a ferry sinking because the ship went off without properly securing the door.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure that the full details of what happened to the Titanic have ever been found. The last documentary I saw suggested the side was ripped open by the iceberg, with incoming water overflowing supposedly watertight compartments so as to cause the sinking. With a fire occurring in the coal supply so as to weaken at least one bulkhead. So the speed would hardly have mattered - apart from an ability as to avoiding the iceberg of course.

Interesting. Speed played the crucial role, also knowing that everyone knew there were numerous icebergs in those waters. Not just one.
The difference is that by day you can easily avoid them.

 

[Stevicus]

They prolly believed it was actually unsinkable.
Murphy's Law was known, but hadn't yet been
so named when the Titanic was designed & put
in service. (It arrived in 1949.) So awareness of
the concept was more lacking back then.

Trivia...
Among design criteria I had for products,
were "foolproof" & "damn foolproof".
The latter involves intent & more aggressive
stupidity.

I guess it's a difference between what one might consider "daredevil" events, like Evel Knievel, as opposed to something that's more commonplace and routine as to be considered "safe enough," such as air travel, motor vehicle travel, and even train travel. Sure, there are crashes and deaths, but most of the time, one can get through unscathed.

 

[Wu Wei]

That's why when I haul machinery, I travel
only 55-60 mph max. Things that go wrong
do so more slowly. Been there & done that.
But the Titanic's problems were manyfold, eg,
- Raging coal bunker fire.
- Poor communication protocols.
- Risky weather conditions ignored.
- Metalurgical defects.
- Lifeboat shortage.
- Poor observation protocols.
- Lax seamanship.

Not slowing down after it hit was another issue too

 

[Mock Turtle]

Interesting. Speed played the crucial role, also knowing that everyone knew there were numerous icebergs in those waters. Not just one.
The difference is that by day you can easily avoid them.

It did seem reckless to continue at this speed - only 2 knots below its maximum apparently - when they knew icebergs were about.

 

[Revoltingest]

With all due respect, you are an engineer, right?

A recovering engineer.

The experts have ascertained, at that time, that it was the speed that caused the huge damage, causing the friction.

Why don't you quote "the experts" so I can evaluate their reasoning.
Accidents are seldom due to a singular cause...based on my familiarity
with aircraft failures. Sometimes there are many contributing factors,
every single one of which was necessary for the failure to occur.

If the ship had been almost stationary, engine off, they would have had all the time in the world to turn.

Ships generally aren't stationary
when traveling across oceans.

But even at a slower speed, they probably would have hit the iceberg frontally, but the damage would have been insignificant, like a huge dent.

Had the other problems not existed, it might've
survived the collision, or avoided it entirely,
even at full speed.
One metallurgical problem wasn't understood when the
ship was designed, ie, low temperature brittle fracture mode
of steel. The N Atlantic temps were below the "glass transition
temperature" of steel. Failures that would normally be ductile
(ie, stretch without breaking) became brittle (ie, no stretching).
This wasn't fully realized until WW2 when Liberty ships were
failing because cracks (due to brittle failure) propagated thru
welds, unlike earlier riveted construction, where the joints
stopped cracks..

Consider....

A Coal Fire May Have Helped Sink the 'Titanic'

A new documentary claims the Titanic’s hull was weakened before it struck an iceberg

www.smithsonianmag.com

Did a Fire Sink the Titanic? These 7 Other Factors Could Have Also Played a Role

The iceberg gets too much credit for the sinking of the famous ship, according to some theories

time.com

New Evidence Suggests There Was Something Very Wrong With The Titanic Before The Iceberg

More than a century on from its fateful voyage, experts are still discovering more about what happened on board the RMS Titanic – and there's new evidence that a fire below deck could've played a big part in its sinking.

www.sciencealert.com

Titanic material failure

Titanic material failure

mechse.illinois.edu

 

[Estro Felino]

A recovering engineer.

Why don't you quote "the experts" so I can evaluate their reasoning.
Accidents are seldom due to a singular cause...based on my familiarity
with aircraft failures. Sometimes there are many contributing factors,
every single one of which was necessary for the failure to occur.

Ships generally aren't stationary
when traveling across oceans.

Had the other problems not existed, it might've
survived the collision, or avoided it entirely,
even at full speed.
One metallurgical problem wasn't understood when the
ship was designed, ie, low temperature brittle fracture mode
of steel. This wasn't realized until WW2 when Liberty ships
were failing because the cracks due to brittle failure propagated
thru welds, unlike earlier riveted construction.

Consider....

A Coal Fire May Have Helped Sink the 'Titanic'

A new documentary claims the Titanic’s hull was weakened before it struck an iceberg

www.smithsonianmag.com

Did a Fire Sink the Titanic? These 7 Other Factors Could Have Also Played a Role

The iceberg gets too much credit for the sinking of the famous ship, according to some theories

time.com

New Evidence Suggests There Was Something Very Wrong With The Titanic Before The Iceberg

More than a century on from its fateful voyage, experts are still discovering more about what happened on board the RMS Titanic – and there's new evidence that a fire below deck could've played a big part in its sinking.

www.sciencealert.com

Titanic material failure

Titanic material failure

mechse.illinois.edu

Conspiracy theories.

 

[Revoltingest]

Conspiracy theories.

Why did you post that phrase?
Is it a comment on something?

I'm familiar with the history of metallurgy,
with structural failure modes, & other
engineering aspects of this issue.
Are those things conspiracy theories?
What is your technical background?

 

[Estro Felino]

Why did you post that phrase?
Is it a comment on something?

Those rumors about the steel and the fire are just conspiracy theories.
It's already been proved.
It was the speed that was the condicio sine qua non of the disaster.
Because at a much slower speed (or with a stationary ship) the damage would have been minimum. Either a big dent or a just one flooded compartment . The frontal one. And with just one compartment gone, the ship can never sink.

Would The Titanic Have Sunk If It Didn't Try To Avoid The Iceberg?

www.lbc.co.uk

What if Titanic had been going more slowly? < Tim Maltin

If Titanic had been going more slowly, she could have turned more quickly - true or false? Historian and researcher Tim Maltin investigates.

timmaltin.com

 

[Revoltingest]

Those rumors about the steel and the fire are just conspiracy theories.

I'm familiar with fracture mechanics & metallurgy.
Calling them a conspiracy theory is the height of
ignorant denial.

It's already been proved.
It was the speed that was the condicio sine qua non of the disaster.
Because at a much slower speed (or with a stationary ship) the damage would have been minimum. Either a big dent or a just one flooded compartment . The frontal one. And with just one compartment gone, the ship can never sink.

Would The Titanic Have Sunk If It Didn't Try To Avoid The Iceberg?

www.lbc.co.uk

What if Titanic had been going more slowly? < Tim Maltin

If Titanic had been going more slowly, she could have turned more quickly - true or false? Historian and researcher Tim Maltin investigates.

timmaltin.com

I hope that you never get into forensic analysis of failures.
Simplistic blaming of a single factor will never lead to
improving safety, particularly of complex systems, eg,
a ship.
You say you're a jurist. Stick to that.
Leave the engineering analysis to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those rumors about the steel and the fire are just conspiracy theories.
It's already been proved.
It was the speed that was the condicio sine qua non of the disaster.
Because at a much slower speed (or with a stationary ship) the damage would have been minimum. Either a big dent or a just one flooded compartment . The frontal one. And with just one compartment gone, the ship can never sink.

Would The Titanic Have Sunk If It Didn't Try To Avoid The Iceberg?

www.lbc.co.uk

What if Titanic had been going more slowly? < Tim Maltin

If Titanic had been going more slowly, she could have turned more quickly - true or false? Historian and researcher Tim Maltin investigates.

timmaltin.com

Your own links show more factors than high speed.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your own links show more factors than high speed.

Let's use numbers, then.
On a one to ten scale, how much did speed play a role in the disaster?

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's use numbers, then.
On a one to ten scale, how much did speed play a role in the disaster?

Not quantifiable.

 

[anna.]

Let's use numbers, then.
On a one to ten scale, how much did speed play a role in the disaster?

 

[Estro Felino]

Not quantifiable.

Zero?

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm familiar with fracture mechanics & metallurgy.
Calling them a conspiracy theory is the height of
ignorant denial.

I hope that you never get into forensic analysis of failures.
Simplistic blaming of a single factor will never lead to
improving safety, particularly of complex systems, eg,
a ship.
You say you're a jurist. Stick to that.
Leave the engineering analysis to me.

Even if I don't know any engineering, I know Aristotelian logic.
I can recognize when something depends on fate or on human will.

 

[Revoltingest]

Zero?

To be not quantifiable is not the same as zero.
It means that a metric is impossible to assign,
ie, no numbers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even if I don't know any engineering, but I know Aristotelian logic.
I can recognize when something depends on fate or on human will.

I observe that poor selection of premises renders logic useless.

Honestly I believe you are a free will denier, with all due respect.

I'm a free will agnostic, ie, I can neither prove nor disprove it.

When one is free will denier, they will do anything to deny people's responsibilities.
They will blame fate, nature, or God knows what else.

That is a very strange claim.