Mark Chirnside wrote:
>
> 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
Didn't OLYMPIC have the same joint, and cross the Atlantic for 30 years
without its causing any problems?
|
