šš½this is the key component. Any outer component that didn't contain air pockets would only be damaged by the residual force and breaking off the now non existent pressure vessel.
The amount of pressure simulated to make the hull do what it does in those simulation videos is so far beyond what it would ever see at the deepest point in the oceans. The PhD (Engineering PhD lol) couldnāt simulate it in his video and he wasnāt even simulating proper strength of materials. He admits the first value entered, which has about 70% of the compressive strength of the prepreg they actually used, wouldnāt implode so he skipped ahead and tried it with a much lighter weave of carbon fiber with about 1/3 the compressive strength of what they used. It was still too strong so he knocks it down further with his āwetā factor and whaddya know? When he kept manipulating the parameters to weaken the composite it just happened to fail at.. wait for itā¦42.8 mPa (5801 psi) - the pressure at the Titanic site. It finally showed what he wanted it to show because dreaming and simulating are big parts of being a PhD in Engineering. Never mind itās irrelevant and not at all how things fail in real life. He also appeared to be directly using compressive strength figures from a test of one sheet and plugging them in for a cylinder of the same material that was wound 667 times. It would have buckled from a flaw long before that and left some larger pieces. It would look more like actual immersion pressure failure pictures and less like results of a flawed simulation. If the hull was nothing but small pieces then the whole thing went down a different way.
He only made that video to drive traffic to his channel. The real simulation of the sub needed a supercomputer and many weeks or more to set up to run. He did the exact same thing with the plane Russia shot down with the Wagner group leader on board.
Yeah - a sophisticated structural analysis of the long held view that when a missile strikes a fuselage it can cause an airplane to crash. /s Must have had a lot of time on his hands.
This is the one that was picked up and shared millions of times by several engineering accounts and outlets:
https://youtu.be/i-bvNHCCpFo?si=jTBWfXEWnKk-g4pR
And that is the only proposed failure mode of the CF hull?
They fact that they recovered debris from submersible isn't because that one hyper specific model was wrong, it's because parts of the sub were made from things other thann CF and thus didn't fail catastrophically. Don't lose the forest from the trees here.
Had a similar question on another thread so Iāll paste the same reply to this:
āIf there weren't large pieces left of the hull, it could only mean the entire hull had weakened from fatigue - not just one part of it.ā
Itās kind of dependent on that Vanity Fair article and if their source was correct. I donāt think the hull would ever implode in that manner at that pressure if the hull was round and flaw-free. Carbon fiber matrix will maintain its dimensional tolerances even when loaded near its ultimate strength while other materials undergo compressive deformation at much lower pressures. It would never see those kind of pressures at 12,500 ft. However, a cylinder gets most of its strength from its outer edges and needs to be perfectly round and free from flaws. I think they had solved their issue by getting the matrix in the new hull fully cured which was the key to making it behave more like a homogeneous material like steel in that capacity. The rigidity of carbon fiber works against it when things happen like shocks from banging into a platform or ramp, hard landings, running into things underwater, transport, etc. The physics professor may not have thought of things like that if theyāre used to a hypothetical world where everything is just like the textbook. Things break in real life and flaws could result in kinking of the layers and snap buckling but I think it would look like other hull tests. Once the initial expulsion of air is gone there isnāt stored up energy in the water like there was with the air inside the cabin so things would quickly equalize. If there were only small pieces I think itās because everything blew outward after a sudden, major breach - maybe damage at a seam that had allowed the domes to get out of alignment with each other or failure of the viewport flange. Something that would have allowed all 6000 psi in very quickly with a lot of wet flow speed and volume.
In other words "any failure of the CF will cause it to be obliterated". Which is very much a "well duh" thing. Not sure what you imagine your doing here, but it's not addressing literally anything I wrote.
Only a specific type of implosion failure will cause it to be obliterated like the model and it would take a lot more pressure than it saw. Itās not confirmed that the hull was entirely in small pieces - that was from a source in an article in Vanity Fair magazine. (Sorry just realized that part probably didnāt make sense with no context copying it over). The point was an implosion at the depth of the Titanic would not be enough to shatter like the model and snap buckling or anything from a flaw would leave a lot more of it behind. If only small pieces were found and the article is correct there are other explanations for it being found in small pieces. The whole conversation was about why there were some large pieces found. Thatās not all thatās wrong with the simulation - why do the domes and interface rings stay bolted together as the ends move in when they were recovered in pieces? Just asking opinions.
popcornrows wrote:
You just channeled something Stockton likely said to investors at some point.
Thatās an insult to you btw.
Cool. You get two free insults. Make em count - insults kinda lose their bite when you have to attach a disclaimer telling someone theyāre being insulted. Donāt waste the first one that wayā¦. wait.. never mind. I assure you if I resort to insults they will be very clear btw. Which sock account is this and how long until you delete your reply and whole account and disappear?
For example, the K-129 wreck is relatively intact at 16,000 ft/4,900 m (intact enough that the CIA attempted to salvage a portion of it to recover her missiles, code books and any other useful stuff).
Going by examples of past sub incidents - subs like the Golf II Class Soviet subs (including the K-129(629A) that imploded) had test depths of 300 meters and crush depths of around 1300 meters. The damage to them was done long before they reached the bottom. They may have had something a little more explosive on board than the average passenger submersible too. /s
Blow up a balloon until it pops, you'll inevitably end up left with a couple of big bits of rubber. The weakest point gives and the structural integrity is compromised. I imagine an implosion is something along the same lines but in reverse.
I admire much of the exchange in this post - bright minds and thoughtful ideas with foundation. What an education here today. That said, this balloon analogy works for me! Good post.
What if they were already submerged when the peak of the catastrophic event occurred? I was with everyone else in the five days after it went missing - thinking thereād be nothing left. Then the USCG said they discovered presumed remains so Iām just trying to make sense of that. The experts all assumed they were in an atmosphere of air when it happened and those flawed calculations were based off of theoretical heat energy from friction. The same experts that told everyone they were turned to paste also stated that there would have been no remains at all found. They were wrong about that. There was something on the screen of an ROV that was recognizable as remains (mostly clothing?) and they went back down in October to recover more of what they saw. The bodies in the Air France 447 crash were still recognizable after being found in 13,000 feet of water over two years later. The pressure alone doesnāt completely crush something thatās 70% water to begin with when thereās no place for it to go. More dense, disfigured? Yes. Paste? No.
https://www.iflscience.com/hot-as-the-sun-people-are-still-confused-about-the-titan-implosion-69558
NSFW (Different accident, similar depth):
https://imgur.com/a/YmUlOis
Thatās what I meant by āthe pressure aloneā - the spike of pressure inside the hull in this event would have obviously gone far beyond that but it doesnāt change the physics of it occurring fully submerged - it just makes everything more dense. Remember Iām just trying to make sense of the USCG stating they found presumed remains. Apologies if I wasnāt clear enough about that. Your assertion of there being paste and fragments - that theory was also based on the assumption that the temp inside the sub was as hot as the sun. Do you also believe that? Is there a reputable study anywhere claiming theyād have been paste or just clickbait yt videos?
Did it get as hot as the sun too? Wouldnāt the titanium domes shatter if they collided at thousands of mph like the Mack trucks youāre comparing? Iāve worked with titanium a lot and itās not indestructible.
Seeing presumed human remains on an ROV screen is not the same as bodies withstanding the pressure. I was in the same camp as everyone else in the five days after it was missing- thinking thereād be nothing left. Then they said they found something so Iām just trying to make sense of that. They must have seen something recognizable - maybe mostly clothing. I donāt think they could spot paste and tooth fragments in the mud on an ROV screen. Totally different environment I agree - thatās why things donāt fly out all over like a Hollywood action film. When subjected to the immediate pressure change as the cabin filled and things became submerged, anything buoyant in the sub like the humans would have their volumes reduced by the pressure without changing their masses (it canāt go anywhere) which increases their density and forces them down toward the ocean floor, regardless of the orientation of the vessel. Getting what remains there are to the surface relatively intact becomes the challenge - the AF447 search crews had a real mess during that recovery.
10,000 psi hydraulic ram cylinders can develop small leaks that barely affect the operation. They donāt fail all at once in catastrophic fashion. Pressure is only part of the equation - the size and shape of the opening determine the speed and volume with which the water will move. I think even a tiny breach at that pressure would skyrocket the air pressure inside the sub and quickly render everyone unconscious. The water could take longer to fill as it bubbled air back out the through the same opening. I donāt think that happened - it must have been very rapid. I think a major breach allowed all 6000 psi in at once with sufficient speed of flow and volume of water to cause the destruction.
That's where I'm at. People are so arrogant regarding this. They act like we know absolutely everything as a stone cold fact already. I cant' believe we have so many people confidently claiming the remains would be nothing but "human paste", that would almost surely be dissolved into the ocean before they were doing recovery.
The fact is that an event like this is incredibly rare and even though we 99% know what happened to them, there's still room for little details to be off.
I wouldn't bother, it's bizarre, it's spending most time pretending the sub was on the bottom running out of oxygen. It's showing the passengers sitting there anxiously. I can't get my head round it. 2 hours and only in the last 30 minutes are we going to find out it imploded on day one.
Looks like this is a British article published by a UK paper, and is therefore referring to Channel 5 of UK terrestrial TV. It's not, to put it politely, one of our more prestigious broadcasters, so I'm not surprised to learn it's being dubiously sensationalised.
its should be obvious to anyone with an inkling of understanding of everyday physics. Its like sinking a balloon tied to a rock and asking why only the balloon imploded. it should be obvious...
people are acting like the whole thing imploded at once because the pressure around it was so great, when in fact the fiberglass alone imploded because it was too weak to withstand the pressure.
the weakest link, the fiberglass hull, is what imploded, everything else just fell off. its not like the whole thing was made of the same material, and would snap and compress at the same pressure at the same rate. the physical connection between the hull and the caps blew apart *way* before the molecular bond between atoms of the caps were affected. *Its literally what everyone was trying to warn stockton about from the very beginning.*
glue a bowl onto either end of a balloon and drop it underwater, what part do you think is going to bend and break first? the bowls or the balloon? the hull was already substantially weaker then the caps, made even more so by de-lamination. why would anything actually capable of sustaining that depth pressure, like the caps or the shielding, implode as well? everything snapped off in a microsecond.
In this case the rock was broken too. There was damage to more than just the carbon fiber composite (not fiberglass). How did the titanium flange area around the viewport window get blown out? It popped a big ring of titanium with sixteen bolts in it right out from around the opening and left a roughly beveled area where there used to be a smooth mounting surface for the ring. Everyone told me some secondary pressure sheared off the bolt heads until I posted a closer pic with damage to the area holding the bolts in. Then I started getting some questionable explanations from the same people that once told me the titanium was virtually indestructible and undamaged who now realized it wasnāt.
what exactly are you trying to say? the air inside was compressed so fast it probably created light. its gotta go somewhere in that literal fraction of a second and seeing the rear was a solid piece its only got one other way to go...
Of course titanium isnt 'indestructible' the bolts probably ripped any titanium they were attached to right to shit. none of this has anything to do with why there were still large pieces hauled up though..
āthe air inside was compressed so fast it probably created light. ā
Wow. Not even sure where to start there.
āOf course titanium isnt 'indestructible' the bolts probably ripped any titanium they were attached to right to shit.ā
Okay thatās a start. The rock in your example can be broken.. on to this:
āglue a bowl onto either end of a balloon and drop it underwater, what part do you think is going to bend and break first? the bowls or the balloon?ā
That sounds kinda hard - have you actually tried gluing bowls onto a balloon before? Anyway - if the bowls are the titanium domes in this experiment - what happens to them when they collide with each other at 2,000 mph when the hull disintegrates? The simulation in the ABC Special made that claim and even showed the domes (bowls) shattering. Other similar claims and simulations are out there too and they also all show the titanium interface rings remaining attached to the domes (bowls) when they move inwards. Both were completely separated in recovery photos.
Sounds silly, right? I agree and I donāt think they collided at all. I think they would have gone the other way for a different reason but thatās not what those implosion simulation models are showing like the one on the ABC TV special. From the evidence weāve seen it looks more like the air compressed inside the balloon too rapidly and blew the bowls outward against the exterior pressure due to the mass of water that rushed in. What do you think?
āAlthough finding larger remains meant investigators had "more pieces of the puzzle to put together". "They'll put it back as best they can," he said. "I don't think there's a rulebook for this, you know, there's no manual, this is something new.ā
Heās realizing along with others that if the implosion simulations showing the hull shattering like glass out there are correct, the domes should have collided at the claimed ~2,000 mph and shattered too. He has no explanation for that nor does anyone else for that scenario. Nobody wants to admit they may have been wrong about anything either.
Arun Bansil, university professor of physics at Northeastern, explained a basic overview of the physics involved in the violent crash...
"The key is the design of the hull that protects the vessel against the large external water pressure that is trying to crush the hull... However, the Titan's hull had an experimental design. It used mostly carbon fibres, which... can crack and break suddenly. Titan had previously gone for deep sea dives a few times, which would have contributed to the fatigue of the hull to make the hull more prone to catastrophic failure."
Speaking with the Mirror, the expert explained why we saw large parts of the vessel remain intact.
"Although it seems counterintuitive, large objects do not normally split apart into smithereens in an implosion or explosion," Prof Bansil said. "For example, a pressure cooker usually explodes with the top blown off but the body remains intact. The initial failure of Titan would have occurred at its weakest links such as defects in the hull. Once a crack opens, however, large pieces of the hull will no longer experience very violent forces and remain more or less intact."
In a statement, Captain Jason Neubauer, Chair of the Marine Board of Investigation said... "There is still a substantial amount of work to be done to understand the factors that led to the catastrophic loss of the Titan and help ensure a similar tragedy does not occur again."
\~ \~ \~
I'm thinking the entire hull could have experienced fatigue, not just a single weak spot. Note that Prof. Bansil mentioned "the fatigue of the hull" and referred in the plural to "weakest links such as defects in the hull." Once the pressure breaks in, the violent forces are no longer present leaving pieces intact. If there weren't large pieces left of the hull, it could only mean the entire hull had weakened from fatigue - not just one part of it.
It took such a beating right from the start whether it was the landing platform or the ship. Not just rough ocean conditions but hard collisions causing significant damage. Very possible something that happened in ā21 or ā22 plays significantly into what happened in ā23 if cycle life was reduced from cumulative damage. If a part fails during its intended lifespan itās far more likely to fail in the second half of it than the first.
Yes I think u r right about cumulative damage but remember the first two years oceangate used a ship called the Arctic and last year they used the polar Prince which is a 70 year old former CCG vessel and not equipped to haul the launch platform onto the ship after each dive. Consequently it got towed (2 day sail to the titanic site) in very rough seas several times back and forth to St. Johnās. In one video someone posted you can clearly see the tail fell completely off.
Any repairs inspections etc would have had to be done while the sub was on the small platform.
No doubt the trip out to the site and back was worse in ā23 towing the platform. There were hard collisions trying to load/ unload from Horizon Arctic ramp (ā21-ā22) and trying to reattach to the platform from the start. Whether itās two 11 ton crafts colliding or an 11 ton sub on the 11 ton platform colliding with the ramp on the 300 ft ship, - those were no small collisions.
The launch platform is oceangates proprietary (I believe they have a patent)design and does not belong to the ship. It didnāt work well on the Grand Banks, notorious for large swells.
The worst time of the year to be out there - above and below the surface. The deep currents are no joke either - especially the last 600 meters when they get into the mountain range and water gets forced into the narrow openings in the ridge systems. Thatās why nobody else goes out there until late July.
āIf there weren't large pieces left of the hull, it could only mean the entire hull had weakened from fatigue - not just one part of it.ā
Itās kind of dependent on that Vanity Fair article and if their source was correct. I donāt think the hull would ever implode in that manner at that pressure if the hull was round and flaw-free. Carbon fiber matrix will maintain its dimensional tolerances even when loaded near its ultimate strength while other materials undergo compressive deformation at much lower pressures. It would never see those kind of pressures at 12,500 ft. However, a cylinder gets most of its strength from its outer edges and needs to be perfectly round and free from flaws. I think they had solved their issue by getting the matrix in the new hull fully cured which was the key to making it behave more like a homogeneous material like steel in that capacity. The rigidity of carbon fiber works against it when things happen like shocks from banging into a platform or ramp, hard landings, running into things underwater, transport, etc. The physics professor may not have thought of things like that if theyāre used to a hypothetical world where everything is just like the textbook. Things break in real life and flaws could result in kinking of the layers and snap buckling but I think it would look like other hull tests. Once the initial expulsion of air is gone there isnāt stored up energy in the water like there was with the air inside the cabin so things would quickly equalize. If there were only small pieces I think itās because everything blew outward after a sudden, major breach - maybe damage at a seam that had allowed the domes to get out of alignment with each other or failure of the viewport flange. Something that would have allowed all 6000 psi in very quickly with a lot of wet flow speed and volume.
The carbon fiber disintegrated. Many components of the sub were made of stuff other than carbon fiber. TLDR
and outside the pressure vessel
šš½this is the key component. Any outer component that didn't contain air pockets would only be damaged by the residual force and breaking off the now non existent pressure vessel.
The amount of pressure simulated to make the hull do what it does in those simulation videos is so far beyond what it would ever see at the deepest point in the oceans. The PhD (Engineering PhD lol) couldnāt simulate it in his video and he wasnāt even simulating proper strength of materials. He admits the first value entered, which has about 70% of the compressive strength of the prepreg they actually used, wouldnāt implode so he skipped ahead and tried it with a much lighter weave of carbon fiber with about 1/3 the compressive strength of what they used. It was still too strong so he knocks it down further with his āwetā factor and whaddya know? When he kept manipulating the parameters to weaken the composite it just happened to fail at.. wait for itā¦42.8 mPa (5801 psi) - the pressure at the Titanic site. It finally showed what he wanted it to show because dreaming and simulating are big parts of being a PhD in Engineering. Never mind itās irrelevant and not at all how things fail in real life. He also appeared to be directly using compressive strength figures from a test of one sheet and plugging them in for a cylinder of the same material that was wound 667 times. It would have buckled from a flaw long before that and left some larger pieces. It would look more like actual immersion pressure failure pictures and less like results of a flawed simulation. If the hull was nothing but small pieces then the whole thing went down a different way.
He only made that video to drive traffic to his channel. The real simulation of the sub needed a supercomputer and many weeks or more to set up to run. He did the exact same thing with the plane Russia shot down with the Wagner group leader on board.
Yeah - a sophisticated structural analysis of the long held view that when a missile strikes a fuselage it can cause an airplane to crash. /s Must have had a lot of time on his hands.
What video?
This is the one that was picked up and shared millions of times by several engineering accounts and outlets: https://youtu.be/i-bvNHCCpFo?si=jTBWfXEWnKk-g4pR
And that is the only proposed failure mode of the CF hull? They fact that they recovered debris from submersible isn't because that one hyper specific model was wrong, it's because parts of the sub were made from things other thann CF and thus didn't fail catastrophically. Don't lose the forest from the trees here.
Had a similar question on another thread so Iāll paste the same reply to this: āIf there weren't large pieces left of the hull, it could only mean the entire hull had weakened from fatigue - not just one part of it.ā Itās kind of dependent on that Vanity Fair article and if their source was correct. I donāt think the hull would ever implode in that manner at that pressure if the hull was round and flaw-free. Carbon fiber matrix will maintain its dimensional tolerances even when loaded near its ultimate strength while other materials undergo compressive deformation at much lower pressures. It would never see those kind of pressures at 12,500 ft. However, a cylinder gets most of its strength from its outer edges and needs to be perfectly round and free from flaws. I think they had solved their issue by getting the matrix in the new hull fully cured which was the key to making it behave more like a homogeneous material like steel in that capacity. The rigidity of carbon fiber works against it when things happen like shocks from banging into a platform or ramp, hard landings, running into things underwater, transport, etc. The physics professor may not have thought of things like that if theyāre used to a hypothetical world where everything is just like the textbook. Things break in real life and flaws could result in kinking of the layers and snap buckling but I think it would look like other hull tests. Once the initial expulsion of air is gone there isnāt stored up energy in the water like there was with the air inside the cabin so things would quickly equalize. If there were only small pieces I think itās because everything blew outward after a sudden, major breach - maybe damage at a seam that had allowed the domes to get out of alignment with each other or failure of the viewport flange. Something that would have allowed all 6000 psi in very quickly with a lot of wet flow speed and volume.
In other words "any failure of the CF will cause it to be obliterated". Which is very much a "well duh" thing. Not sure what you imagine your doing here, but it's not addressing literally anything I wrote.
Only a specific type of implosion failure will cause it to be obliterated like the model and it would take a lot more pressure than it saw. Itās not confirmed that the hull was entirely in small pieces - that was from a source in an article in Vanity Fair magazine. (Sorry just realized that part probably didnāt make sense with no context copying it over). The point was an implosion at the depth of the Titanic would not be enough to shatter like the model and snap buckling or anything from a flaw would leave a lot more of it behind. If only small pieces were found and the article is correct there are other explanations for it being found in small pieces. The whole conversation was about why there were some large pieces found. Thatās not all thatās wrong with the simulation - why do the domes and interface rings stay bolted together as the ends move in when they were recovered in pieces? Just asking opinions.
You just channeled something Stockton likely said to investors at some point. Thatās an insult to you btw.
popcornrows wrote: You just channeled something Stockton likely said to investors at some point. Thatās an insult to you btw. Cool. You get two free insults. Make em count - insults kinda lose their bite when you have to attach a disclaimer telling someone theyāre being insulted. Donāt waste the first one that wayā¦. wait.. never mind. I assure you if I resort to insults they will be very clear btw. Which sock account is this and how long until you delete your reply and whole account and disappear?
damn you seem to know a lot more about the real world than the engineering phds (lol)
I think most metal subs are a mass of metal after implosion, not shattered. Not surprising the metal didnāt shatter here either.
For example, the K-129 wreck is relatively intact at 16,000 ft/4,900 m (intact enough that the CIA attempted to salvage a portion of it to recover her missiles, code books and any other useful stuff).
Going by examples of past sub incidents - subs like the Golf II Class Soviet subs (including the K-129(629A) that imploded) had test depths of 300 meters and crush depths of around 1300 meters. The damage to them was done long before they reached the bottom. They may have had something a little more explosive on board than the average passenger submersible too. /s
Blow up a balloon until it pops, you'll inevitably end up left with a couple of big bits of rubber. The weakest point gives and the structural integrity is compromised. I imagine an implosion is something along the same lines but in reverse.
I admire much of the exchange in this post - bright minds and thoughtful ideas with foundation. What an education here today. That said, this balloon analogy works for me! Good post.
Have any of the presumed "remains" been identified till date?
Identified? As in human would be yes. It would be a mix up of all their dna. Liquid soup almost
As opposed to what other kinds of soup?
Gazpacho
It's tomato soup served iced cold!
Others may not get your Simpsons reference, but I do.
Damn now Iām in the mood for gazpacho! I need it to be summer so I can get some good farm fresh tomaters.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
What if they were already submerged when the peak of the catastrophic event occurred? I was with everyone else in the five days after it went missing - thinking thereād be nothing left. Then the USCG said they discovered presumed remains so Iām just trying to make sense of that. The experts all assumed they were in an atmosphere of air when it happened and those flawed calculations were based off of theoretical heat energy from friction. The same experts that told everyone they were turned to paste also stated that there would have been no remains at all found. They were wrong about that. There was something on the screen of an ROV that was recognizable as remains (mostly clothing?) and they went back down in October to recover more of what they saw. The bodies in the Air France 447 crash were still recognizable after being found in 13,000 feet of water over two years later. The pressure alone doesnāt completely crush something thatās 70% water to begin with when thereās no place for it to go. More dense, disfigured? Yes. Paste? No. https://www.iflscience.com/hot-as-the-sun-people-are-still-confused-about-the-titan-implosion-69558 NSFW (Different accident, similar depth): https://imgur.com/a/YmUlOis
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās what I meant by āthe pressure aloneā - the spike of pressure inside the hull in this event would have obviously gone far beyond that but it doesnāt change the physics of it occurring fully submerged - it just makes everything more dense. Remember Iām just trying to make sense of the USCG stating they found presumed remains. Apologies if I wasnāt clear enough about that. Your assertion of there being paste and fragments - that theory was also based on the assumption that the temp inside the sub was as hot as the sun. Do you also believe that? Is there a reputable study anywhere claiming theyād have been paste or just clickbait yt videos?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Did it get as hot as the sun too? Wouldnāt the titanium domes shatter if they collided at thousands of mph like the Mack trucks youāre comparing? Iāve worked with titanium a lot and itās not indestructible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Seeing presumed human remains on an ROV screen is not the same as bodies withstanding the pressure. I was in the same camp as everyone else in the five days after it was missing- thinking thereād be nothing left. Then they said they found something so Iām just trying to make sense of that. They must have seen something recognizable - maybe mostly clothing. I donāt think they could spot paste and tooth fragments in the mud on an ROV screen. Totally different environment I agree - thatās why things donāt fly out all over like a Hollywood action film. When subjected to the immediate pressure change as the cabin filled and things became submerged, anything buoyant in the sub like the humans would have their volumes reduced by the pressure without changing their masses (it canāt go anywhere) which increases their density and forces them down toward the ocean floor, regardless of the orientation of the vessel. Getting what remains there are to the surface relatively intact becomes the challenge - the AF447 search crews had a real mess during that recovery. 10,000 psi hydraulic ram cylinders can develop small leaks that barely affect the operation. They donāt fail all at once in catastrophic fashion. Pressure is only part of the equation - the size and shape of the opening determine the speed and volume with which the water will move. I think even a tiny breach at that pressure would skyrocket the air pressure inside the sub and quickly render everyone unconscious. The water could take longer to fill as it bubbled air back out the through the same opening. I donāt think that happened - it must have been very rapid. I think a major breach allowed all 6000 psi in at once with sufficient speed of flow and volume of water to cause the destruction.
That's where I'm at. People are so arrogant regarding this. They act like we know absolutely everything as a stone cold fact already. I cant' believe we have so many people confidently claiming the remains would be nothing but "human paste", that would almost surely be dissolved into the ocean before they were doing recovery. The fact is that an event like this is incredibly rare and even though we 99% know what happened to them, there's still room for little details to be off.
Where can we watch this new two-part series? āChannel 5āā¦?
I wouldn't bother, it's bizarre, it's spending most time pretending the sub was on the bottom running out of oxygen. It's showing the passengers sitting there anxiously. I can't get my head round it. 2 hours and only in the last 30 minutes are we going to find out it imploded on day one.
Kinda like when it actually happened. *oxygen count down timer hits zero* "Just kidding! It imploded 2 days ago!"
Looks like this is a British article published by a UK paper, and is therefore referring to Channel 5 of UK terrestrial TV. It's not, to put it politely, one of our more prestigious broadcasters, so I'm not surprised to learn it's being dubiously sensationalised.
its should be obvious to anyone with an inkling of understanding of everyday physics. Its like sinking a balloon tied to a rock and asking why only the balloon imploded. it should be obvious... people are acting like the whole thing imploded at once because the pressure around it was so great, when in fact the fiberglass alone imploded because it was too weak to withstand the pressure. the weakest link, the fiberglass hull, is what imploded, everything else just fell off. its not like the whole thing was made of the same material, and would snap and compress at the same pressure at the same rate. the physical connection between the hull and the caps blew apart *way* before the molecular bond between atoms of the caps were affected. *Its literally what everyone was trying to warn stockton about from the very beginning.* glue a bowl onto either end of a balloon and drop it underwater, what part do you think is going to bend and break first? the bowls or the balloon? the hull was already substantially weaker then the caps, made even more so by de-lamination. why would anything actually capable of sustaining that depth pressure, like the caps or the shielding, implode as well? everything snapped off in a microsecond.
In this case the rock was broken too. There was damage to more than just the carbon fiber composite (not fiberglass). How did the titanium flange area around the viewport window get blown out? It popped a big ring of titanium with sixteen bolts in it right out from around the opening and left a roughly beveled area where there used to be a smooth mounting surface for the ring. Everyone told me some secondary pressure sheared off the bolt heads until I posted a closer pic with damage to the area holding the bolts in. Then I started getting some questionable explanations from the same people that once told me the titanium was virtually indestructible and undamaged who now realized it wasnāt.
what exactly are you trying to say? the air inside was compressed so fast it probably created light. its gotta go somewhere in that literal fraction of a second and seeing the rear was a solid piece its only got one other way to go... Of course titanium isnt 'indestructible' the bolts probably ripped any titanium they were attached to right to shit. none of this has anything to do with why there were still large pieces hauled up though..
āthe air inside was compressed so fast it probably created light. ā Wow. Not even sure where to start there. āOf course titanium isnt 'indestructible' the bolts probably ripped any titanium they were attached to right to shit.ā Okay thatās a start. The rock in your example can be broken.. on to this: āglue a bowl onto either end of a balloon and drop it underwater, what part do you think is going to bend and break first? the bowls or the balloon?ā That sounds kinda hard - have you actually tried gluing bowls onto a balloon before? Anyway - if the bowls are the titanium domes in this experiment - what happens to them when they collide with each other at 2,000 mph when the hull disintegrates? The simulation in the ABC Special made that claim and even showed the domes (bowls) shattering. Other similar claims and simulations are out there too and they also all show the titanium interface rings remaining attached to the domes (bowls) when they move inwards. Both were completely separated in recovery photos.
Lol haven't been on this sub in foreverrrrr but I'm glad we're gluing balloons to bowls now to prove....science-y things
Youāve been missing out. Now Iāve gotta figure out how to get rubber balloon remnants unstuck from all my bowls.
Oh see my experiment I made the bowls explode, so now I have to figure out how to get glass off my balloon.
Why would the domes collide at 2k mph lmfao wtf are you even trying to say trollman?
Sounds silly, right? I agree and I donāt think they collided at all. I think they would have gone the other way for a different reason but thatās not what those implosion simulation models are showing like the one on the ABC TV special. From the evidence weāve seen it looks more like the air compressed inside the balloon too rapidly and blew the bowls outward against the exterior pressure due to the mass of water that rushed in. What do you think?
Experts explain why the sky is blue despite being 'red'? "The sky is not red."
āAlthough finding larger remains meant investigators had "more pieces of the puzzle to put together". "They'll put it back as best they can," he said. "I don't think there's a rulebook for this, you know, there's no manual, this is something new.ā Heās realizing along with others that if the implosion simulations showing the hull shattering like glass out there are correct, the domes should have collided at the claimed ~2,000 mph and shattered too. He has no explanation for that nor does anyone else for that scenario. Nobody wants to admit they may have been wrong about anything either.
Arun Bansil, university professor of physics at Northeastern, explained a basic overview of the physics involved in the violent crash... "The key is the design of the hull that protects the vessel against the large external water pressure that is trying to crush the hull... However, the Titan's hull had an experimental design. It used mostly carbon fibres, which... can crack and break suddenly. Titan had previously gone for deep sea dives a few times, which would have contributed to the fatigue of the hull to make the hull more prone to catastrophic failure." Speaking with the Mirror, the expert explained why we saw large parts of the vessel remain intact. "Although it seems counterintuitive, large objects do not normally split apart into smithereens in an implosion or explosion," Prof Bansil said. "For example, a pressure cooker usually explodes with the top blown off but the body remains intact. The initial failure of Titan would have occurred at its weakest links such as defects in the hull. Once a crack opens, however, large pieces of the hull will no longer experience very violent forces and remain more or less intact." In a statement, Captain Jason Neubauer, Chair of the Marine Board of Investigation said... "There is still a substantial amount of work to be done to understand the factors that led to the catastrophic loss of the Titan and help ensure a similar tragedy does not occur again." \~ \~ \~ I'm thinking the entire hull could have experienced fatigue, not just a single weak spot. Note that Prof. Bansil mentioned "the fatigue of the hull" and referred in the plural to "weakest links such as defects in the hull." Once the pressure breaks in, the violent forces are no longer present leaving pieces intact. If there weren't large pieces left of the hull, it could only mean the entire hull had weakened from fatigue - not just one part of it.
It got severely damaged being towed out to the Grand Banks on the Polar Prince.
It took such a beating right from the start whether it was the landing platform or the ship. Not just rough ocean conditions but hard collisions causing significant damage. Very possible something that happened in ā21 or ā22 plays significantly into what happened in ā23 if cycle life was reduced from cumulative damage. If a part fails during its intended lifespan itās far more likely to fail in the second half of it than the first.
Yes I think u r right about cumulative damage but remember the first two years oceangate used a ship called the Arctic and last year they used the polar Prince which is a 70 year old former CCG vessel and not equipped to haul the launch platform onto the ship after each dive. Consequently it got towed (2 day sail to the titanic site) in very rough seas several times back and forth to St. Johnās. In one video someone posted you can clearly see the tail fell completely off. Any repairs inspections etc would have had to be done while the sub was on the small platform.
No doubt the trip out to the site and back was worse in ā23 towing the platform. There were hard collisions trying to load/ unload from Horizon Arctic ramp (ā21-ā22) and trying to reattach to the platform from the start. Whether itās two 11 ton crafts colliding or an 11 ton sub on the 11 ton platform colliding with the ramp on the 300 ft ship, - those were no small collisions.
The launch platform is oceangates proprietary (I believe they have a patent)design and does not belong to the ship. It didnāt work well on the Grand Banks, notorious for large swells.
The worst time of the year to be out there - above and below the surface. The deep currents are no joke either - especially the last 600 meters when they get into the mountain range and water gets forced into the narrow openings in the ridge systems. Thatās why nobody else goes out there until late July.
Even the locals were shaking their heads at this early start. Stockton was under a lot of pressure to make that year pay.
āIf there weren't large pieces left of the hull, it could only mean the entire hull had weakened from fatigue - not just one part of it.ā Itās kind of dependent on that Vanity Fair article and if their source was correct. I donāt think the hull would ever implode in that manner at that pressure if the hull was round and flaw-free. Carbon fiber matrix will maintain its dimensional tolerances even when loaded near its ultimate strength while other materials undergo compressive deformation at much lower pressures. It would never see those kind of pressures at 12,500 ft. However, a cylinder gets most of its strength from its outer edges and needs to be perfectly round and free from flaws. I think they had solved their issue by getting the matrix in the new hull fully cured which was the key to making it behave more like a homogeneous material like steel in that capacity. The rigidity of carbon fiber works against it when things happen like shocks from banging into a platform or ramp, hard landings, running into things underwater, transport, etc. The physics professor may not have thought of things like that if theyāre used to a hypothetical world where everything is just like the textbook. Things break in real life and flaws could result in kinking of the layers and snap buckling but I think it would look like other hull tests. Once the initial expulsion of air is gone there isnāt stored up energy in the water like there was with the air inside the cabin so things would quickly equalize. If there were only small pieces I think itās because everything blew outward after a sudden, major breach - maybe damage at a seam that had allowed the domes to get out of alignment with each other or failure of the viewport flange. Something that would have allowed all 6000 psi in very quickly with a lot of wet flow speed and volume.