1. Your link is broken.
2. What I think is utterly irrelevant. Your edit goes against the consensus of Titanic historians for over a century and the accounts of people at the time. You, Random Person on the Internet, are not more credible than a century of historical scholarship.
If, in due course, this turns out to be Dated History and historians come to a different conclusion, the article can be changed then. But until that happens, this site will go with the accepted consensus of professional historians. Understood?
I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
1. Evidence of this "consensus" please.
2. For some reason TV Tropes is changing the link and adding https://tvtropes.org/
' to the front of it. You can get the actual link from the url box.
.....right, clearly not understood.
I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
I post several reasons why Carpathia could not and did not make 17.5 knots and also gave a link. Your only response is that some unspecified "consensus" agrees with you. Capisce?
Testing: https://web.archive.org/web/20070303102839/http://users.senet.com.au/$gittins/carpathia.html/
You'll have to manually replace $ with a tilde. Webpage appears to have disappeared from the internet, but archived version works. It also seems to have been duplicated at http://hercolano2.blogspot.com/2012/04/titanic-carpathia-legends-and-reality.html
A casual review of the internet shows most site parroting one side or the other. Original work on the subject seems at least medium-level difficulty to find. Edited by crazysamaritan Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
^ Thanks for sorting that.
It's not a topic that gets covered in much detail in most Titanic literature. Gittins' article is the most in-depth analysis I've come across.
One article, of dubious veracity, does not qualify as grounds to go against the likes of Walter Lord and Captain Arthur Rostron — who, you know, actually captained the ship.
No. Flat no. If this were A Thing, it would've been discovered within a few years of Ballard's discovery of the wreck site. Please stop pretending as though you are an authority on this. We'll stick with historical consensus, thanks.
I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
Gittins is actually a long-time Titanic researcher. Check out 'Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic' on Amazon. He's a co-author. Rostron believed he was 58 miles from the Titanic. We know, thanks to the wreck being discovered 13.5 miles from the CQD position, that he was wrong. That's indisputable. If you don't believe me then go ask Robert Ballard.
Walter Lord was writing decades before the wreck was discovered and merely repeated what Rostron believed. Lord also says the iceberg ripped open a 300 foot gash in the Titanic (which, thanks to the discovery of the wreck, is now also known to be wrong). Perhaps we should include that in the article too?
Again, please stop referring to this phantom "consensus" that supports you. You've been asked repeatedly to provide evidence of this consensus and have repeatedly failed to do so.
Edited by Aurelian
Why is this discussion taking place here? Forgive me for saying this, but I can't think of a way that this discussion could help improving TV Tropes irregardless of the outcome.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I don't know, but Aurelian doesn't seem to be willing to let this go, so I was hoping for a mod fiat ruling. I don't feel like repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall.
I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
I corrected a factual inaccuracy on the page. Rose And Heather has twice changed it back, so I took it here to stop the edit war continuing. I've argued my case, but Rose And Heather seems determined to keep the misinformation in there.
Edited by Aurelian
It was not a factual inaccuracy. Your edit was based on one article, by one person, about a night that has been so muddied and fogged over by the mists of time that to know the truth is impossible. What is reported here, now, is the consensus of Captain Sir Arthur Rostron, the passengers on board Carpathia that night, the board of inquiry, and dozens of lifelong Titanic historians. Do you honestly believe that if this were as compelling as you claim it is, it wouldn't have been discovered within years, if not months, of Ballard's discovery of the wreck? Do you?
One article, by one person, is not enough. Not here. Let. It. Go.
I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
@ Aurelian: You do know that a manually fueled engine isn't capable of maintaining a steady number of RPM, don't you?
Case in point: a steam engine's RPM are directly proportionate to the rate coal in shoveled in them. If the coal shovelers get overethusiastic, the RPM go up. If they get tired, as is bound to happen if they shovel coal at a frenetic pace for more than two hours, the RPM go down.
RPM = speed. -> High RPM = the engine provides more juice. -> engine output exceeds "100%"
So, for as long as the coal shovelers were able to keep up the pace, Carpathia most definitely exceeded her 14 knots top speed. But they probably weren't going that fast the entire way.
So, please. Drop the subject. The location of the Titanic's shipwreck has nothing to do with whether Carpathia reached 17.5 knots at some point during her mad dash to reach the sinking ship.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
The location of the shipwreck has everything to do with it. Rostron though he'd covered 58 miles in 3 hours 25 minutes. That's where the 17 knots estimate comes from. He didn't realise he was only 49 miles away. Carpathia could have covered 49 miles in that time going at an average of 14 knots. Unless you think in between going up to 17.5 knots they were also dramatically dropping speed to 7 or 8 knots too?
It's a myth and it all stems from Rostron's mistaken belief that 1. Titanic's distress position was correct and 2. That he found the Titanic lifeboats at that position. That the wreck is 13 miles from that position proves he was wrong. This issue was also looked into in the book 'Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic' by Halpern et al. It estimates an average speed of 13-15 knots.
As to the supposed consensus of "passengers on board Carpathia that night, the board of inquiry, and dozens of lifelong Titanic historians". The Carpathia passengers knew nothing of the ship's speed except what they'd been told by the crew. The board of inquiries never gave it serious thought. It was outside their remit. Do please name the dozens of lifelong Titanic historians who have looked into this issue in detail and agree with you. Not the ones who just lazily repeated a good story from a previous Titanic book.
Edited by Aurelian
How about a compromise edit which retains the 17 knots claim, but adds that this has been called into question by other researchers, citing the location of the wreck?
Carpathia had to slow down when she reached the iceberg field in order to —surprise surprise— dodge the icebergs. That would account for the "inconsistencies".
Also, there's no need for a compromise. I don't care how much of a Titanic buff you are, you clearly don't know squat about external combustion engines (i.e. steamboats' engines). So stop trying to say that this is impossible. It's totally possible. The only surprising thing is that Carpathia's captain gave the order to go 110% on the engines, and the engineer followed through with it. if the engine had jammed in any way, Carpathia would have had a hole in its hull equal to the Titanic's.
Edited by RoundRobin - Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Let it go, Robin. You need to drop it now. I offered a compromise and you want to carry on with the argument.
I've said my piece. It's a nice story but completely debunked by the location of the wreck. 49 miles in 3.5 hours = an average speed of 14 knots.
Exactly. Average speed. Maximum and minimum speed need not be the same as the average speed.
...You're not getting how this works, do you? And I'm really not in the mood to explain speed and acceleration/deceleration, not to mention EC engines, to someone stuck in their own views.
Point is, you cite one source which may or may not be accurate and/or biased against a multitude of sources saying the exact opposite. You can believe whatever you like, but the official stance is: Carpathia reached 17.5 knots at some point during that night.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Crazy Samaritan, the main and most reputable source is Walter Lord's A Night to Remember and his post-discovery, 1986 follow up, The Night Lives On. The theory is also treated as entirely sound by the Titanic: Honor and Glory team, who have a small army of highly regarded historians working with them and are famous for their meticulous research into every detail of the sinking, including this one.
I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
This issue is covered in "Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal" by Sam Halpern et al. There's an entire chapter on the Carpathia. They suggest a maximum speed of 15 knots and an average of 13-15.
@Robin. You've overlooked the other major factor in speed: the ship's hull (and hull resistance, which increases exponentially the faster a ship goes). Carpathia's was already at its limit. But like I said, time to move on. Happy to take it to PM if you wish to continue the debate.
Edited by Aurelian
...Hull resistance won't save you if your engine (which is located in the bowels of the ship, btw, and right next to the fuel deposit) goes boom. Your ignorance is showing.
Anyway, I don't want to continue the "debate". (FYI, engineering isn't about debating things; it's about math.) You can believe whatever you like.
Edited by RoundRobin - Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Not sure you know what hull resistance means (nothing to do with making a ship explosion proof...), but anyway, my sources specifically refute the 17.5 knots claim. The sources given in its favour just repeat it uncritically.
Wikipedia, Boiler Explosion; of particular interest and relevance is the Steamboat Boilers section. It explains why: a. a boiler blowing up is catastrophic for the ship, and b. why the order to go 110% on the engines was both insane and brave at the same time.
Read it. Or don't. Either way, I'm done trying to explain.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
We're talking about speed, not a boiler exploding. Why are you even bringing this into it?
I was happy to move on and compromise days ago. You rejected that and wanted to carry on the argument.
I explained why your compromise was based on erroneous information. I'll break it down:
- Doing the basic math, you get that: 58 miles in 3,5 hrs means that Carpathia had an average speed of 14 knots. So far, so good.
- From the 14 knots average speed, your sources conclude that Carpathia's actual speed must have fluctuated between 13 and 15 knots, and it could never have reached 17.5 knots.
This is the erroneous part, as I tried to explain to you again and again.
With her engines working on overdrive, Carpathia could have achieved a speed of 17.5 knots. The boiler pressure going through the roof confirms that. That's not a matter of debate; that's how her engine works. Unless you can get me an account from the shipwright stating that it's mechanically impossible, then there's no arguing against that.
What I also said is that Carpathia most likely couldn't have maintained that speed for long. Witness accounts even confirm as much. An educated guess would be a few minutes, before the steam pressure twisted the pipes and pistons near the point of mechanical failure. Even ignoring the human factor, the more the boiler room became a literal boiler, the more the mechanical parts were being twisted and bent out of shape, the lower the engine's output. Again, that's engineering 101. No room for debate here. The permanent damage to the ship's engines confirms that she far exceeded her safety limits.
TL;DR: Your sources dispute the 17.5 knots claim on the argument that "the timeframe fits better this way". I say, she could have reached 17.5 knots for a few minutes and still maintained an average speed of 14 knots.
PS. This is all nitpicking into details that, ultimately, have nothing to do with the Titanic. And, as I said before, I've got better things to do than split hairs and argue with you over a field of study you're not familiar with.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
So are we agreed then on an average speed of 14 knots over the distance? Is your argument now just speculation that Carpathia "could have reached 17.5 knots for a few minutes"?
I think I've more than justified my compromise position. The claimed speed of 17.5 knots demonstrably has been questioned by Titanic researchers, whether you agree with it or not. Meanwhile you've offered no compromise and insisted on prolonging the argument.
PS. That basic maths is exactly how the 17 knots theory was arrived at in the first place. 58 miles in 3 hours 25 mins = 17 knots. Rostron then just upped it to a peak of 17.5.
Edited by Aurelian
The idea that the Carpathia reached a speed of 17.5 knots is a myth. It comes from the mistaken belief that it covered 58 miles in 3 hours 30 minutes. It didn't. We now know, thanks to the discovery of the Titanic wreck, that Titanic was actually 13.5 miles SE of its last radioed CQD position, which placed it substantially nearer the Carpathia than everyone believed at the time (only about 49 miles away). 49 miles divided by 3.5 hours equals 14 knots. Had the Carpathia been going at 17.5 knots, it should have reached the lifeboats in well under three hours.
Moreover, the Carpathia's maximum rated speed was 14 knots. It had not the HP or the hull capacity to reach 17.5. It doesn't matter how much power is diverted to the engines, beyond a certain point it won't go any faster.
If there are still doubts, consider which is a more likely explanation for Carpathia reaching Titanic in 3 hours 30 minutes: a 14 knot ship with ten year old engines reaching an impossible speed of 17.5 knots, or it only needing to cover 49 miles and not 58?
See also this article by a Titanic researcher:
[1]
Edited by Aurelian Hide / Show Replies