Propeller Inertia & Murdoch's Turn Around the Berg

Propeller Inertia & Murdoch's Turn Around the Berg

Postby Arlene Blundell on Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:35 am

Heres something I noticed, whilst looking at the behaviour of 'tractor' aircraft and the props thereof. The right hand direction of the prop allows a benefit to the aircraft when making a right bank or turn. Turns to the right are quicker, due to the energy created by the right hand turning prop.

Ships propellers are all about moving water, pulling it in and pushing it out. A rudder moved either way will direct many tons of water, with the intention of pushing the stern of the vessel as far around and as fast as possible.

I believe Titanic had three props. Two small (!) ones either side. These two rotate in opposite directions to maintain a balance of force. Unfortunately, there is a third prop in the middle. That much larger prop has to rotate in some direction, and I believe this particular steam turbine prop rotated in a clockwise direction.

After getting his ice warning, First Officer Murdoch, apparently, ordered a left hand turn. With the large steam prop and one of the smaller ones rotating right, it should have made a left turn quicker and more efficently. With the rudder set for a left turn, many tons of water should be flowing to aid this turn.

I look at how close this collision was to being a 'near miss'. In fact, it was more like a 'near hit', and one that the ships officers definately thought could have been avoided with a more efficient turn.

Murdoch, however, loaded the dice against the ship even further. He threw the great engines into reverse. This meant that, not only was Titanic rendered less able to turn by the very act of reversing. Lack of forward motion at the crucial point equals a wider turning circle. The faster the ship, the smaller her turn will be. Murdoch took speed away fro the vessel when most needed, in fact, the ONLY time in the voyage when speed was a critical factor), but as soon as those props started to turn in a reverse direction, they were pushing water AWAY from the control surfaces, and actually making a left hand turn more difficult.
So, to summarize, Titanic should have made a left hand turn more efficiently. If the props and engines were untouched, this would have been the case.

It wasn't.

A left hand turn, plus a reverse of the props, meant that Titanic's stern was actually working against itself.

In another post, I make the claim that Titanic was mishandled by her Officer of The Watch at a crucial period in the voyage. Murdoch's lack of understanding doomed Titanic. All the other mistakes and coincidences of the night could have been wiped clean by Murdoch's orders.

Instead, he is said to have reacted "instinctively". Fine. But it wasn't informed instinct. Murdoch was doing what he probably would have in a sailing vessel or a vessel much smaller and less prone to inertial forces.

First Officer Murdoch is fully responsible. E.J. Smith, apart from his speed in the icefield, bears responsibility for what went down on his own bridge only by extension, (Captain's responsibility).

Murdoch and Smith. Culpable. Edwardian standards brokered no criticism of either, because they were dead. This is why the American Senate Inquiry looks and feels like a witch hunt. The Inquiry looked to blame someone living, if only to satisfy the notion that you should not speak ill of the dead.

Arlene & Christopher

(A note from Chris)
(This thread shows how my wife and I work as a team. We brainstorm, then we consult, brainstorm some more, then post. I have not seen the above mentioned anywhere in our Titanic literature. So until I'm proven wrong, this one is our baby. And I have more original work on this site.
The one I'm most proud of Arlene only posted not so long ago. In it, I asked why the people in boat No.6 could still see the outline and lights of a vessel in the same quadrant of ocean as the Californian.

If they could see it from that low down in the water, then it was physically impossible for that ship to have been over twenty miles away.
And, they were not the only survivors to see this phenomenon.

Explain that one. :lol: 8-)
Last edited by Arlene Blundell on Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Propeller Inertia & Murdoch's Turn Around the Berg

Postby Arlene Blundell on Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:41 am

So, O.K.

Do we have it correct?

Over to the learned 'few', (or 'many', whichever fits.)
We are more than happy to back down if proven incorrect. This is what a forum is for. To bounce ideas off people who have more knowledge and resources.
I'll leave this in the hands of the experts. :D
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Propeller Inertia & Murdoch's Turn Around the Berg

Postby Arlene Blundell on Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:18 am

humph...

experts that don't reply.

Please do something about the "pop ups" on this site. Far too many and often.
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Propeller Inertia & Murdoch's Turn Around the Berg

Postby Arlene Blundell on Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:07 pm

I think we have proven our point here.

No reply from THS indicates that the Lordites here have no case.

Of coure, they are not going to reply and be shot down, are they?

That would expose many a pro-Lord "Commutator" as so much pulp fiction.... :)
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am


Return to Collision and Sinking Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron