On Mar 23, 8:36 am, Mark Chirnside <mark_chirnside2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for your response. (I am not sure if you hit the 'reply to
> author' button alone, as I got an e-mail but no posting on this group
> thread. I did try to reply to you via e-mail, but it bounced; I am
> posting this to the group as well, in case PJF missed it.)
>
> >>They brought a deep-sea camera with them so the viewer could
>
> actually see Britannic's rear expansion joint.
>
> The team discovered that it was extensively modified compared to the
> original joint design used for the Titanic, leading them to believe
> that Harland and Wolff knew of the deficient design and altered the
> rear expansion joint on Britannic (and possibly Olympic as well, but
> they didn't research it).<<
>
> The Britannic information is very interesting. However, in my view
> it's rather speculative to make the link to Titanic, because (as I
> understand it) no do***entation whatsoever has been produced to
> sup****t that link.
>
> As I explained in my article 'Olympic's Expansion Joints'
(2007):http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Olympic-Titanic_expansionjoints-achill...
> , there is reason to believe that Britannic's arrangement was improved
> as a result of experience with Olympic prior to the disaster. We have
> evidence that H&W knew Olympic's arrangement could be improved, in
> March 1912, and so it is far more likely - in my view - that the
> changes to Britannic were merely the usual progressive engineering and
> improvement. (I first published this new information in 2004 or 2005.)
> The do***entary did not seem to mention this im****tant information.
>
> >>They team also found that Titanic's joint was an especially crude
>
> design. It would have been barely able to hold the ****p together if
> Titanic encountered unusually high waves in mid-ocean, given the
> scenario that one end of the ****p was on a wave crest and the other
> end was on an adjacent crest.<<
>
> The expansion joints on Olympic and Titanic were, IIRC, the first they
> installed on any White Star Line vessels. Their long superstructures
> made them necessary. However, the assertion that Titanic's rear
> expansion joint 'would have been barely able to hold the ****p together
> if Titanic encountered unusually high waves in mid-ocean' is simply
> untrue.
>
> An expansion joint does not hold the ****p together at all. The purpose
> of an expansion joint is to divide the superstructure and allow it to
> flex on top of the structural hull, thereby relieving the
> superstructure (and its lighter scantlings) of the high stresses that
> the hull girder below has to endure as a matter of routine. Long
> superstructures always 'work' considerably at sea.
>
> Olympic retained her original arrangement of expansion joints
> throughout her life. We know, from the storms she encountered over the
> winter of 1911-12 (including one in January 1912 that Captain Smith
> described as the worst he had encountered in forty years at sea), that
> their performance was broadly satisfactory.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Chirnside.
> Webmaster:www.markchirnside.co.uk
Hi Mark! Yes, I meant to post my message in the newsgroup, but must
have hit the wrong button.
Thanks for posting my message and for your responses.
|
