Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Titanic Disaster

  1. Mar 30, 2006 #1
    What was the reason of Titanic Disaster??
    one thing that amazes me is that iceberg was really small ,,shown in the movie and it had the capability of ruputuring the ship apart..yeah and absolutely the ship became brittle but even then there should be something more into it which goes deeper...:bugeye:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 30, 2006 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Most of the iceburg was below water and couldn't be seen.
     
  4. Mar 30, 2006 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah aren't most iceburgs at the most, 1/3 above water?
     
  5. Mar 30, 2006 #4

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    According to the movie?! The movie isn't by any means historically accurate! It's a movie.

    Only a small portion of an iceberg is visible above the surface of the ocean, the rest is hidden beneath. That large section beneath is what the Titanic hit.
     
  6. Mar 30, 2006 #5
    yeah Pengwuino,,approx. only 10% is above surface of water...
    Moonbear,,the movie isn't accurate ,,thats what led me to make this thread..
    so if 10 % is above surface ,,then a limit of size can be considered...even then i doubt how can iceberg do that...i haven't been ever convinced..:frown:
     
  7. Mar 30, 2006 #6

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the point is that you have NO idea of the size of the iceberg that did the damage. There has been so much learned about this disaster in the last 20yrs that there is really nothing left to guess about.
     
  8. Mar 30, 2006 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I read a lot about the construction years ago, apparantly it was a series of small things going wrong that ultimately led to the sinking. It's interesting to read about. There appeared to be a problem with the rivets.

    http://www.titanic-online.com/index.php4?page=319
     
  9. Mar 30, 2006 #8
    Integral,,
    My idea is according to the movie ..
    And actually there is nothing much i saw about or anything at all about the size of iceberg when i tried to search about it..

    "Experts have since found evidence, however, that it was the location, rather than the extent, of the damage that caused the ship to sink."
    http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564059/Titanic_Disaster.html
     
  10. Mar 30, 2006 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  11. Mar 30, 2006 #10

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sequence of things go wrong and stuff happens. But seriously, when look at the material properties of stuff used at those times, even say pre-50-60s let alone the Titanic, always surprised anything has stayed afloat, aloft... under any kind of slightly abnormal situation.

    [one "distorted" Titanic related thread : https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=100769 ]
     
  12. Mar 30, 2006 #11

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ok, I beleive that there were reports of ice on the main deck of the Titantic. Now I'll bet that was at least 15m ABOVE the water. So that implies that there were several times that below the water (90% by volume) . That is one HUGE chuck of ice! Do I think it big enough to cause the damage? Considering the several problems with the steel and rivits.. Yes I do.

    What do you think sunk the Titantic, if not an iceberg?
     
  13. Mar 31, 2006 #12
    from where did you get that value...?

    what i find amazing is,on one hand there is iceberg ,nothing but frozen water and that was even standing still...and on the otherhand unsinkable Titanic engineered to be one of the best... perhaps i am not able to see what you can all see.
     
  14. Mar 31, 2006 #13

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    First of all I am somewhat familiar with large ships, having lived on one for 2yrs. From the pictures you can count 4 or 5 rows of Portholes above the water line, so at roughly 3m per deck I get about 15m, this may be conservative I doubt it was anything less then that. Then my source for ice on the deck... The movie of course. :biggrin:

    You must also remember that a ship that size has a tremendous amount of momentum, they do not, nor can they be stopped quickly. Icebergs can indeed be very big, ice is also very solid, 5cm of steel plate is nothing to tons of ice. Of course the iceberg was moving, it was drifting on the ocean currents, at a much different rate and a different direction then the ship was moving.
     
  15. Mar 31, 2006 #14
    yo havent you ever seen an ice cube floating in your cup of water or whatever.... what percentage is above the survace of the water..... go check it out
     
  16. Mar 31, 2006 #15


    Considering the dimensions of Titanic,,it couldn't move the iceberg..My problem is right here ,i am not able to understand what kind of collision it was,and how it was propagated,,,...its just easy to say that collision took place and titanic got teared apart..what about from physics point of view..

    iceberg is above 10% is physics,,its easy to work out using eqns of fluid mechanics...but what about physics involved during collision...
     
  17. Mar 31, 2006 #16
    Evo,thats an interesting and valuable thread..:smile:
    i guess you guys have superior searching skills..
     
  18. Mar 31, 2006 #17

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    From everything I have seen on the Titanic (and no...I have never seen the movie) there was not a whole lot of damage done by the iceberg. The majority of the blame went to very poor ship design.

    What exactly are you trying to figure out heman, when you say you are interested in the physics of the collision?

    BTW, from Evo's source:
    I never knew what RMS stood for. Now I know.
     
  19. Mar 31, 2006 #18
    wow, I forgot how interested I used to be in the Titanic. What I didn't know about were the sister ships, that's really neat. I always had the impression that the titanic was though the best of the best, and, one of it's kind, but the Olympic had alread sailed before the titanic.

    What I wonder is why it was scrapped? shouldn't have some sort of museum or historical society been just livid with the Idea that an exact copy of the Titanic would be destroyed?
     
  20. Mar 31, 2006 #19

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You mean it wasn't the Root Mean Squared Titanic?
     
  21. Mar 31, 2006 #20

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That term always popped into my head when I saw or heard that! I can't help it. I know it's not the correct term, but work is the only place I hear those three letters together like that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Titanic Disaster
  1. Hull of titanic (Replies: 8)

  2. Life on Titan! (Replies: 17)

  3. Pf Titans! (Replies: 7)

  4. Japanese Titanic (Replies: 1)

Loading...