>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Matt Clark wrote:
>> Adding to the theory you’re referring to: It isn’t that “it wasn’t an
>> iceberg,” it was that the brush with the berg didn’t slice the hull like a
>> can opener, which has been the conventional wisdom. Instead, it caused
>> plates at three different levels to pop their rivets and let the sea in. A
>> major contributing factor was that the “curing” of the steel used in the
>> plates made them brittle at low sea temperatures. Several publications,
>> including the NY Times, published on this within the last three or four
>> months.
>
Metal vessels were not exactly new in 1912. Nor were ship designers unaware
of the fact that cold and heat change the qualities of solids. Now I would
not be stunned to find out that the theory of rivet failure caused the
Titanic’s sinking becomes accepted over time. Moving “plates” were only a
theory when I first studied geology a few eons ago and now are a foundation
of the science. Yet, think of it. The impact of a ship the size of a
Titanic, traveling fast, hitting a glancing blow against something with the
mass of a large iceberg would have been EXTRAORDINARY. (I grew up in
Minnesota and have seen what happens to cars when they hit snow banks that
have had time to become essentially ice walls.) It could very well be that
the ice both penetrated the hull and shattered the rivets. BTW: years ago a
geologist who was also a Titanic junkie told me he thought that the ship
could have survived had it not turned away, but would have rammed the berg
headon. Sound plausible?
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930