Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


History > Ocean Liners Titanic > Re: What really...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 4 of 4 Topic 582 of 617
Post > Topic >>

Re: What really sank the Titanic

by dougald@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Urquhart) Jun 15, 2008 at 07:08 PM

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:14:26 -0400, "R.Glueck" <glueck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>I'll be interested to read this, but I think the authority of numerous 
>scientists and structural engineers might carry more weight.  I suppose I

>haven't given the authors credit, having not yet read their work.  It
seems 
>improbably that the rusticles could be something other than iron
consuming 
>bacteria.  If the rusticles are swept away, what remains of the metal 
>underneath?

The authors are metallurgists. Foeke is a staff materials scientist at
the National Instutute of Standards and Technology, Jennifer Mccarty
has a doctorate in Materials Science and Technology at Johns Hopkins.
her doctoral dissertation was on the metallurgy of Titanic's rivets.

The rusticles are, indeed, iron consuming bacteria, but Foeke reckons
that the iron they are consuming is from the normal products of
corrosion - the bacteria are not directly causing the corrosion
themselves.

Regards

Doug Urquhart
 




 4 Posts in Topic:
What really sank the Titanic
dougald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-06-14 12:43:09 
Re: What really sank the Titanic
Steven Davies-Morris <  2008-06-14 06:45:41 
Re: What really sank the Titanic
"R.Glueck" <  2008-06-14 10:14:26 
Re: What really sank the Titanic
dougald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-06-15 19:08:53 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sat Nov 22 0:56:02 CST 2008.