Titanic, left, and Olympic sat next to one another in a double gantry in the last photo of the two together,
weeks before Olympic set sail
Posted on 04/15/2008 5:17:12 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Titanic, left, and Olympic sat next to one another in a double gantry in the last photo of the two together,
weeks before Olympic set sail
Researchers have discovered that the builder of the Titanic struggled for years to obtain enough good rivets and riveters and ultimately settled on faulty materials that doomed the ship, which sank 96 years ago Tuesday.
The builder’s own archives, two scientists say, harbor evidence of a deadly mix of low quality rivets and lofty ambition as the builder labored to construct the three biggest ships in the world at once — the Titanic and two sisters, the Olympic and the Britannic.
For a decade, the scientists have argued that the storied liner went down fast after hitting an iceberg because the ship’s builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. More than 1,500 people died.
When the safety of the rivets was first questioned 10 years ago, the builder ignored the accusation and said it did not have an archivist who could address the issue.
Now, historians say new evidence uncovered in the archive of the builder, Harland and Wolff, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, settles the argument and finally solves the riddle of one of the most famous sinkings of all time. The company says the findings are deeply flawed.
Each of the great ships under construction required three million rivets that acted like glue to hold everything together. In a new book, the scientists say the shortages peaked during the Titanic’s construction.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Iceberg ahead!” ping...
It was Bush and his buddies at ‘big rivet’.It’s time the rivet industry was regulated.
I read this last night and it was amazing. The shipbuilder is trying to do a major CYA, but it’s impossible to argue with the tests done on the rivets.
It could have been the rivets. It could have been the iceberg. I guess we’ll never know.
Ginsberg Ahead!!!!
Titanic Rubs Against Iceberg, Sinks!
Women, The Poor, and Minorities Hardest HitBush's Fault!
Cheap Chinese rivets?......................
I think it's been accepted by a broad consensus of researchers, but Harland and Wolff denied it. This looks like they've found more solid evidence.
The iceberg came from G-L-O-B-A-L W-A-R-M-I-N-G !
Every big project can be analyzed to find its weakest links, especially after it sinks. Some projects may have more of its links on the weak side... (thinking Big Dig here).
That is a very strong engineering case. The area of the break was clearly determined.
Popped rivets is some one else’s claim to their 15 minutes in my view.
You might be right about that. Bush created Global Warming to eliminate icebergs from the oceans so his cronies in the rivet industry could continue to sell substandard rivets. Bush lied and millions of polar bears died.
You are missing the racist angle.
The “bitter” white iceberg brings down the proud black ship on its maiden voyage.
Well the Olympic didn’t meet any icebergs and sailed on until it was scrapped in the mid 1930s. Britannic sadly met a mine and sank during WW 1. Those were the sister ships of the Titanic.
The Titanic sank?
This strikes me as less a materials problem and more a design defect. If the evidence is to be believed, the design called for iron rivets to be used in low stress areas as a cost-saving measure. It is not like the designers called for one thing and the builders substituted another.
The assumption that the bow would be a low stress seems to have derived from analysis of the bending moments on the hull. What the designers failed to envision, however, was a massive impact load to the bow, such as was caused by the iceberg collision.
Of course, whether or not steel rivets in this area would have saved the ship is pure speculation. Obviously the ship could have been designed with a bow like an icebreaker, and it would have emerged completely unscathed, but the substitution of steel rivets alone might not have made much difference. Structures stengthened in one area often fail in another. I would not be at all unexpected for the entire bow structure to be built to a certain assumed load, which means the hull plating or some other component would have failed if the rivets had held.
It would be interesting to see the details of the sinking of the Brittanic by the mine in 1916, to see if this damage also occured in the bow area, where it was assumed to be low-stress and iron rivets were used. If so, one could make the argument that the assumption that stresses in the bow could be counted on to be low is a very bad assumption to make.
You know, I did some experiments out in my garage with some ice cubes from the refrigerator and an old fender from a ‘64 Chevy, and try as I might, I could not get those ice cubes to break that fender. Even when I went down to the party supply and got a 50 pound block of ice, I still could not do more than dent it.
So that proves it! Ice cannot break steel. Therefore it must have been a controlled demolition. I mean, have you ever seen a ship sink that fast?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.