On Dec 9, 10:21 pm, Charles Groark <cgro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> IIRC (I saw an earlier presentation), they could not see Tiatanic's
> expansion joint clearly enough to see whether the expansion joint was as
> designed. However, they did see it on Britannic and it had been
> redesigned. The conclusion was, I believe, that even though they had no
> evidence that the joint contributed in any way to Titanic's sinking, H&W
> decided it would better to be safe than sorry and quietly changed the
> design.
Charlie,
Thanks for the synopsis. I do doubt the programme's conclusion.
I believe that changes to Britannic's expansion joints were merely
part of the continuous improvement process that was practised by the
****pbuilder. There is evidence that Harland & Wolff had reason to
change the expansion joints PRIOR to the Titanic disaster, which I
outlined in my recent Titanic Historical Society Commutator article:
http://secured.titanichistoricalsociety.org/store/tek9.asp?pg=products&specific=jqnqcqq8
As far as I am aware, this was not discussed in the programme, which
seems unfortunate given that it was rather im****tant information that
casts doubt on the theory. I hope to publish the article online at a
later date, but after a suitable interval.
I have some further comments in my December 2005 TRMA article, which
can be accessed from the Articles: External Articles index on my
website.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Webmaster: www.markchirnside.co.uk
|
