So you think you know why the Titanic sank

[Tambohamilton]

Yeah. I understand that it was a long time ago etc, but PCS is horrible stuff!

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

Yeah. I understand that it was a long time ago etc, but PCS is horrible stuff!

[Tambohamilton]

To be fair, PCS is a very broad specification. However it generally refers to the low strength/poor quality end of the 'mild' steel scale. A spec I have here for PCS is 220MPa yield, 400MPa ultimate strength. Nowadays ships are built from stuff that's about 325MPa yield and 550MPa ultimate. I don't have any data on the ductility of PCS, but modern ships use steel which will get to about 20% elongation at failure...I bet the PCS Titanic was built from was less than that!

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

Regardless, an ice berg would remain the proximate cause of the sinking.

Not something we have need to worry over in the near future........................

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by DenverSteve

Not something we have need to worry over in the near future........................

The Costa Concordia hit reefs and sank which was recent.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

To be fair, PCS is a very broad specification. However it generally refers to the low strength/poor quality end of the 'mild' steel scale. A spec I have here for PCS is 220MPa yield, 400MPa ultimate strength. Nowadays ships are built from stuff that's about 325MPa yield and 550MPa ultimate. I don't have any data on the ductility of PCS, but modern ships use steel which will get to about 20% elongation at failure...I bet the PCS Titanic was built from was less than that!

For sure there would have been much less yield on the Titanic's plates.

[Tambohamilton]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

The Costa Concordia hit reefs and sank which was recent.

Reefs won't melt with global warming

[stocktree]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

The Costa Concordia hit reefs and sank which was recent.

Costa hit solid rock. Titanic hit a iceberg. Makes you wonder how big it was, and why was nobody on watch if they knew there was ice?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by stocktree

Costa hit solid rock. Titanic hit a iceberg. Makes you wonder how big it was, and why was nobody on watch if they knew there was ice?

I read the ''depth sonar'' was off when the Costa hit the rocks.
I imagine there was a watch in the mast 'nest' of Titanic, a combination of very cold air with warmer air above and a starry night fooled the watchers into not seing the iceberg before it was too late, which is why I was questioning why were there no fitted searchlights pointing from the front of the ship which was going at top speed all the time.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by stocktree

Costa hit solid rock. Titanic hit a iceberg. Makes you wonder how big it was, and why was nobody on watch if they knew there was ice?

There were White Star employees in the crow’s nest on lookout; however, they could barely see anything at night due to lack of moonlight and no binoculars.

[stocktree]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

There were White Star employees in the crow’s nest on lookout; however, they could barely see anything at night due to lack of moonlight and no binoculars.

No lights back then? I mean if you know there's ice, just don't look?? Or take a more southern route? The captain really messed up.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by stocktree

No lights back then? I mean if you know there's ice, just don't look?? Or take a more southern route? The captain really messed up.

All the time the 'wrong' Captain was thinking to get to NYC asap because of the delays already incurred so taking a longer route was out of the question, in fact I would say he had some mental issues by not slowing the ship knowing the dangers already posted and of course a second in command would not overrule the idiot in those days.

[///d]

Wait... the Titanic was real? I thought it was just a movie!

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///d

Wait... the Titanic was real? I thought it was just a movie!

It wasn't bad but the main plot with Rose and Jack was weighing it down a bit though understandable from Hollywood way of doing things, I think it t should have concentrated more on Smith and his immediate crews concerns with a gradual lead up to the collision.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

Reefs won't melt with global warming

May not melt, but will suffer one adverse effect or another....

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

Reefs won't melt with global warming

They won't move either

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

Reefs won't melt with global warming

Nope. They're just dying at an astronomical rate due to the increased water temperature.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

They won't move either

Truth!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

It wasn't bad but the main plot with Rose and Jack was weighing it down a bit though understandable from Hollywood way of doing things, I think it t should have concentrated more on Smith and his immediate crews concerns with a gradual lead up to the collision.

Well, it was a movie vs. a documentary...

Just saying.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Well, it was a movie vs. a documentary...

Just saying.

The doc's more to the point tho

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

The doc's more to the point tho

I think the importance of the movie in the end was it funded the undersea exploration of the wreck, which several documentaries were based upon.

Good discussion overall on a historically interesting subject.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think the importance of the movie in the end was it funded the undersea exploration of the wreck, which several documentaries were based upon.

Good discussion overall on a historically interesting subject.

Indeed the wreck lies 3.8 kilometres down and a good point that the film funded some of the exploration of it. There was even a movie made of Titanic being raised intact!