There was a program on last night that talked about the possibility that burning coal ultimately resulted in the Titanic sinking.
Interesting viewing. The suggestion was that a fire in the coal bunker not only made the ship a bit weaker, but in order to get rid of the burning coal, they burned more of it, which explained why they were doing such a fast speed in an area where there were icebergs.
They surmise that the owners had a choice. They had a minimal amount of coal due to a coal miners strike, so they didn't have any in reserve, but they had to burn it to use up the coal that was on fire. Running out of fuel on the crossing would have been a PR disaster for them.
So, was this another example of just human decision processes resulting in a mistake? The most prudent thing would have been to delay the crossing until the fire was out, or even to change the course to avoid the dangerous area, but they would most likely run out of fuel.
I had not seen this theory before, but when they looked at photos taken of the ship before it was launched, it showed a smear on the hull, which they are suggesting is evidence of the fire. Surprisingly there is testimony of firemen that the ship was on fire, but it was ignored as people concentrated on the iceberg as the main cause of the disaster.
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Select to expand quotePugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
I keep on watching those ads on TV where the woman goes to Japan 'to research Clean Coal'... she never actually reports what she finds, and I amuse myself thinking that there was a part 2 to that ad where she discovers its a crock of something.
Clean coal? I am sure its possible, but not cheaply or easily.
Looking at this Titanic program, it was interesting to think that now we rely on cheap 'bunker fuel' to send thousands of ships around the world, yet back then we used coal. I wonder what would have happened to the world if there was no such thing as oil, would we have to wait until alcohol became a bulk fuel?
Metallurgical coal will have some application for one or two decades... thermal coal can be substituted out of energy production now...
Ever been to a coal mine? 
Select to expand quotePugwash said..
Metallurgical coal will have some application for one or two decades... thermal coal can be substituted out of energy production now...
Ever been to a coal mine?
Yes I have. When I was in primary school they took us down a mine in West Dapto (I can't remember the exact name). It was cool, although I am glad we did it when I was too young to be worried about claustrophobia. They even turned out the lights for us to see what black really was.
You seem to understand this stuff a bit. Remind me, is coking coal used for steel production? I grew up in Wollongong, and my understanding was that coal is turned into coke and then used for melting iron ore to make steel.
Is that correct? The other day someone was trying to tell me that they used gas, and I am not sure.
Select to expand quotePugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Leave it alone mate, we all know your political views and by ranting on you just show how you cannot hold a logical conversation.
Yes I did see this documentary a few weeks ago and it did seam plausible. Like any disasters there is always string of events that lead up to the catastrophe. Slow burning fire in the coal bunkers and a other events making the people in charge make unsafe descissions does look like a possible cause.
Select to expand quoteHardcarve1 said..Pugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Leave it alone mate, we all know your political views and by ranting on you just show how you cannot hold a logical conversation.
Yes I did see this documentary a few weeks ago and it did seam plausible. Like any disasters there is always string of events that lead up to the catastrophe. Slow burning fire in the coal bunkers and a other events making the people in charge make unsafe descissions does look like a possible cause.
To assess those decisions you'd also need to know how common it was to have a fire in the coal bunkers, e.g. was it not all that rare but became just one more piece in an unfortunate and unlikely series of events... Which is what characterises most disasters.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Pugwash said..
Metallurgical coal will have some application for one or two decades... thermal coal can be substituted out of energy production now...
Ever been to a coal mine?
Yes I have. When I was in primary school they took us down a mine in West Dapto (I can't remember the exact name). It was cool, although I am glad we did it when I was too young to be worried about claustrophobia. They even turned out the lights for us to see what black really was.
You seem to understand this stuff a bit. Remind me, is coking coal used for steel production? I grew up in Wollongong, and my understanding was that coal is turned into coke and then used for melting iron ore to make steel.
Is that correct? The other day someone was trying to tell me that they used gas, and I am not sure.
Metallurgical coal is used to make coke... coke is used in blast furnaces to make steel... Natural gas is now being used in steel production using Direct Reduction... I think DR is now 15% of all steel production and growing... figures are all off the top of my head and may have changed in the last year or so...
Select to expand quoteHardcarve1 said..Pugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Leave it alone mate, we all know your political views and by ranting on you just show how you cannot hold a logical conversation.
Yes I did see this documentary a few weeks ago and it did seam plausible. Like any disasters there is always string of events that lead up to the catastrophe. Slow burning fire in the coal bunkers and a other events making the people in charge make unsafe descissions does look like a possible cause.
What a fascinating post... this ain't HW and I suspect you know a lot less than half of what you think you know on my views... and logic it would follow...
Let's put it out there, coal has been politicised... that is dumb... it's an energy source...
Let's also look at the facts - are there alternatives and can thermal coal be fully substituted now? Yes.
Can met coal be fully substituted now? probably. Will it take a few more years/decades to phase out? Yes.
Is coal mining ridiculously destructive. Yes. Don't believe me? Google earth Queensland - Moranbah, Blackwater...
Select to expand quotePugwash said..
What a fascinating post... this ain't HW and I suspect you know a lot less than half of what you think you know on my views... and logic it would follow...
Is coal mining ridiculously destructive. Yes. Don't believe me? Google earth Queensland - Moranbah, Blackwater...
Given neither of these mines existed in 1912... what exactly is their cause in the sinking of the Titanic?
I'm confused... Titanic sinks = QLD coal mines
Is this some type of the "6 degrees of Separation of Leonardo DiCaprio"?
Select to expand quotePugwash said..Hardcarve1 said..Pugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Leave it alone mate, we all know your political views and by ranting on you just show how you cannot hold a logical conversation.
Yes I did see this documentary a few weeks ago and it did seam plausible. Like any disasters there is always string of events that lead up to the catastrophe. Slow burning fire in the coal bunkers and a other events making the people in charge make unsafe descissions does look like a possible cause.
What a fascinating post... this ain't HW and I suspect you know a lot less than half of what you think you know on my views... and logic it would follow...
Let's put it out there, coal has been politicised... that is dumb... it's an energy source...
Let's also look at the facts - are there alternatives and can thermal coal be fully substituted now? Yes.
Can met coal be fully substituted now? probably. Will it take a few more years/decades to phase out? Yes.
Is coal mining ridiculously destructive. Yes. Don't believe me? Google earth Queensland - Moranbah, Blackwater...
What's the alternative you talk about Lewis ? 
Please don't say Gas. the system sold out to the Multi Nationals years ago. 
Thorium maybe?
I remember watching the documentary quite some time ago.
we'll probably never know the reality of the situation, and it all happened well before safety departments were a thing. I wouldn't be at all suprised if it were true, wouldn't be suprised if it wasn't either.
There was a plutonium fire.
once the fission rod began to overheat they opened the flush hatch to cool the nuclear reaction.
The heat was so great that they had to head into an ice field to get near frozen water in to the intake , it began working to slow the nuclear reaction , they went faster to get more water in to cool quicker ....... than bang.............. blimey sir we've hit an iceberg.....
the venturi began to overheat immediately upon slowing down causing the ships hull to break and let water in, the bubbles you see in the titanic documentary starring Leo and Kate is actually the steam off the nuclear rod and not air escaping as it sinks.
The ship could of been saved however the captain commenced the sinking lest nuclear technology be discovered by the russians
Select to expand quotePugwash said..FormulaNova said..Pugwash said..
Metallurgical coal will have some application for one or two decades... thermal coal can be substituted out of energy production now...
Ever been to a coal mine?
Yes I have. When I was in primary school they took us down a mine in West Dapto (I can't remember the exact name). It was cool, although I am glad we did it when I was too young to be worried about claustrophobia. They even turned out the lights for us to see what black really was.
You seem to understand this stuff a bit. Remind me, is coking coal used for steel production? I grew up in Wollongong, and my understanding was that coal is turned into coke and then used for melting iron ore to make steel.
Is that correct? The other day someone was trying to tell me that they used gas, and I am not sure.
Metallurgical coal is used to make coke... coke is used in blast furnaces to make steel... Natural gas is now being used in steel production using Direct Reduction... I think DR is now 15% of all steel production and growing... figures are all off the top of my head and may have changed in the last year or so...
Ahh, thanks! I now have to remember who was telling me that it was natural gas that they were using in Wollongong, despite my having grown up hearing references to coke ovens, and having a friend from school that still works there cleaning out said ovens (at least he was a few years ago).
I love it when people tell me something as if its the truth but can't actually back it up with details.
Select to expand quotemineral1 said..Pugwash said..Hardcarve1 said..Pugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Leave it alone mate, we all know your political views and by ranting on you just show how you cannot hold a logical conversation.
Yes I did see this documentary a few weeks ago and it did seam plausible. Like any disasters there is always string of events that lead up to the catastrophe. Slow burning fire in the coal bunkers and a other events making the people in charge make unsafe descissions does look like a possible cause.
What a fascinating post... this ain't HW and I suspect you know a lot less than half of what you think you know on my views... and logic it would follow...
Let's put it out there, coal has been politicised... that is dumb... it's an energy source...
Let's also look at the facts - are there alternatives and can thermal coal be fully substituted now? Yes.
Can met coal be fully substituted now? probably. Will it take a few more years/decades to phase out? Yes.
Is coal mining ridiculously destructive. Yes. Don't believe me? Google earth Queensland - Moranbah, Blackwater...
What's the alternative you talk about Lewis ?
Please don't say Gas. the system sold out to the Multi Nationals years ago.
Thorium maybe?
Thorium... great idea
I was pro nuclear (uranium)10 years ago... now? Probably not so much... was hoping the nuclear boffins could solve fusion.
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
There was a plutonium fire.
once the fission rod began to overheat they opened the flush hatch to cool the nuclear reaction.
The heat was so great that they had to head into an ice field to get near frozen water in to the intake , it began working to slow the nuclear reaction , they went faster to get more water in to cool quicker ....... than bang.............. blimey sir we've hit an iceberg.....
the venturi began to overheat immediately upon slowing down causing the ships hull to break and let water in, the bubbles you see in the titanic documentary starring Leo and Kate is actually the steam off the nuclear rod and not air escaping as it sinks.
The ship could of been saved however the captain commenced the sinking lest nuclear technology be discovered by the russians
Gold, particularly the documentary reference.
The iceberg was a hologram, the ship was taken out by government demolition crews using mini nukes and thermite
Select to expand quotePugwash said..Hardcarve1 said..Pugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Leave it alone mate, we all know your political views and by ranting on you just show how you cannot hold a logical conversation.
Yes I did see this documentary a few weeks ago and it did seam plausible. Like any disasters there is always string of events that lead up to the catastrophe. Slow burning fire in the coal bunkers and a other events making the people in charge make unsafe descissions does look like a possible cause.
What a fascinating post... this ain't HW and I suspect you know a lot less than half of what you think you know on my views... and logic it would follow...
Let's put it out there, coal has been politicised... that is dumb... it's an energy source...
Let's also look at the facts - are there alternatives and can thermal coal be fully substituted now? Yes.
Can met coal be fully substituted now? probably. Will it take a few more years/decades to phase out? Yes.
Is coal mining ridiculously destructive. Yes. Don't believe me? Google earth Queensland - Moranbah, Blackwater...
Original post was nothing to do with coal as an energy source or politics it was about the theory that the Titanic may have had structural failure promoted by a slow burning coal fire. It was not about politics but you go and spin your opinion into it by making some comment irrelevant to the post. You will not leave your politics alone and want to invade other threads to try and push your agenda which if its a political conversation then that's fine and you can promote your thoughts but when its about some other issue let others have a say without your sarcasm.
Please stay on topic.
Seriously you blokes have overlooked the obvious answer to everything. . . . . . . . Ask "Henry", right petie
www.henrymakow.com/was_sinking_the_titanic.html
Sorry I have stooped so low but I couldn't resist the opportunity to beat petie to the punch.....
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
Seriously you blokes have overlooked the obvious answer to everything. . . . . . . . Ask "Henry", right petie
www.henrymakow.com/was_sinking_the_titanic.html
Sorry I have stooped so low but I couldn't resist the opportunity to beat petie to the punch.....
Oh no! You really have sunk to a low low low! I should have known that there would be something on that page to explain a disaster as a conspiracy.
We are in the general area though, so no conspiracies exist out here! 
Select to expand quoteHardcarve1 said..Pugwash said..Hardcarve1 said..Pugwash said..
Hmmm... titanic, dunno...
Coal helped sink a conservative Australian political party.
Leave it alone mate, we all know your political views and by ranting on you just show how you cannot hold a logical conversation.
Yes I did see this documentary a few weeks ago and it did seam plausible. Like any disasters there is always string of events that lead up to the catastrophe. Slow burning fire in the coal bunkers and a other events making the people in charge make unsafe descissions does look like a possible cause.
What a fascinating post... this ain't HW and I suspect you know a lot less than half of what you think you know on my views... and logic it would follow...
Let's put it out there, coal has been politicised... that is dumb... it's an energy source...
Let's also look at the facts - are there alternatives and can thermal coal be fully substituted now? Yes.
Can met coal be fully substituted now? probably. Will it take a few more years/decades to phase out? Yes.
Is coal mining ridiculously destructive. Yes. Don't believe me? Google earth Queensland - Moranbah, Blackwater...
Original post was nothing to do with coal as an energy source or politics it was about the theory that the Titanic may have had structural failure promoted by a slow burning coal fire. It was not about politics but you go and spin your opinion into it by making some comment irrelevant to the post. You will not leave your politics alone and want to invade other threads to try and push your agenda which if its a political conversation then that's fine and you can promote your thoughts but when its about some other issue let others have a say without your sarcasm.
Please stay on topic.
Yeah, I did go off topic early... I tired to resist the temptation to rubbish the coalalition, but failed... sorry
oh, and it's not often I'm alleged to have an agenda...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
There was a program on last night that talked about the possibility that burning coal ultimately resulted in the Titanic sinking.
Interesting viewing.
The cause of the sinking was that it struck an iceberg. Everything else is circumstantial, although the accumulation of circumstances certainly resulted in the sinking.
The most critical circumstance which is rarely mentioned is that the lookouts did not see the iceberg until it was too late, and the real reason for this is never mentioned. Thye usually just claim they were not watching closely enough.
The reason for them not seeing the iceberg, even though it was a crystal clear night on a calm and windless sea is indicated in numerous witness statements but completely ignored as to their implications.
Many said the sky was full of stars and they went all the way down to the sea. They could not see where the sky ended and the ocean started.
The only way stars can be seen right down to the water is if there is a temperature inversion and the sight line is deflected upwards. Otherwise, the stars finish some distance up from the horizon due to the large distance of dense air that the light has to pass through when the stars are on the horizon.
This being the case, the lookouts were not seeing anything further than about half a mile in front because their sight line was actually deflected up into the night sky. Anything on the water further than half a mile away was invisible no matter how carefully they looked because they were actually looking over the top of whatever was on the water, in this case, a rather large iceberg.
Had that one factor not been present, the lookouts would have easily seen the iceberg when it was two or three miles away and thus the ship could have easily turned away. Under normal conditions. at a forward speed of 23 knots, the iceberg would have been visible for more than five minutes before the situation became critical.
The ship was not going too fast given that the sea was dead calm and conditions were crystal clear. It was just going too fast in hindsight considering that they really only had a visual horizon of half a mile. That is the distance estimated at when the lookout actually saw the iceberg.
Had they know that they would have slowed down.
They didn't select the incompetent dregs of the merchant navy to captain ships like that.
Remove that one factor and the ship would not have hit the iceberg and thus would not have sunk.
Remove the coal fire or numerous other incidental factors and it still would have sunk but maybe more slowly.
Interesting none the less.
Select to expand quotepweedas said..FormulaNova said..
There was a program on last night that talked about the possibility that burning coal ultimately resulted in the Titanic sinking.
Interesting viewing.
The cause of the sinking was that it struck an iceberg. Everything else is circumstantial, although the accumulation of circumstances certainly resulted in the sinking.
The most critical circumstance which is rarely mentioned is that the lookouts did not see the iceberg until it was too late, and the real reason for this is never mentioned. Thye usually just claim they were not watching closely enough.
The reason for them not seeing the iceberg, even though it was a crystal clear night on a calm and windless sea is indicated in numerous witness statements but completely ignored as to their implications.
Many said the sky was full of stars and they went all the way down to the sea. They could not see where the sky ended and the ocean started.
The only way stars can be seen right down to the water is if there is a temperature inversion and the sight line is deflected upwards. Otherwise, the stars finish some distance up from the horizon due to the large distance of dense air that the light has to pass through when the stars are on the horizon.
This being the case, the lookouts were not seeing anything further than about half a mile in front because their sight line was actually deflected up into the night sky. Anything on the water further than half a mile away was invisible no matter how carefully they looked because they were actually looking over the top of whatever was on the water, in this case, a rather large iceberg.
Had that one factor not been present, the lookouts would have easily seen the iceberg when it was two or three miles away and thus the ship could have easily turned away. Under normal conditions. at a forward speed of 23 knots, the iceberg would have been visible for more than five minutes before the situation became critical.
The ship was not going too fast given that the sea was dead calm and conditions were crystal clear. It was just going too fast in hindsight considering that they really only had a visual horizon of half a mile. That is the distance estimated at when the lookout actually saw the iceberg.
Had they know that they would have slowed down.
They didn't select the incompetent dregs of the merchant navy to captain ships like that.
Remove that one factor and the ship would not have hit the iceberg and thus would not have sunk.
Remove the coal fire or numerous other incidental factors and it still would have sunk but maybe more slowly.
Interesting none the less.
In that case they should have been able to see the Chicago skyline due to straight line of sight. And therefore they should have been slowing down as the lookout up in the crows' nest called out "land ahoy!".
Select to expand quotepweedas said..FormulaNova said..
There was a program on last night that talked about the possibility that burning coal ultimately resulted in the Titanic sinking.
Interesting viewing.
The cause of the sinking was that it struck an iceberg. Everything else is circumstantial, although the accumulation of circumstances certainly resulted in the sinking.
.
Yes, its all circumstantial, but its like saying that the cause of the car crash was the thing that it hit at the end. Lots of things lead up to it, and if some of them were different, the outcome might be completely different.
I think the coal-bunker fire thing seems to have some merit as you would think that the ship would be going slower if the captain felt that visibility was somehow compromised. Hopefully a good captain would know that it was compromised.
Select to expand quoteCambodge said..pweedas said..FormulaNova said..
There was a program on last night that talked about the possibility that burning coal ultimately resulted in the Titanic sinking.
Interesting viewing.
The cause of the sinking was that it struck an iceberg. Everything else is circumstantial, although the accumulation of circumstances certainly resulted in the sinking.
The most critical circumstance which is rarely mentioned is that the lookouts did not see the iceberg until it was too late, and the real reason for this is never mentioned. Thye usually just claim they were not watching closely enough.
The reason for them not seeing the iceberg, even though it was a crystal clear night on a calm and windless sea is indicated in numerous witness statements but completely ignored as to their implications.
Many said the sky was full of stars and they went all the way down to the sea. They could not see where the sky ended and the ocean started.
The only way stars can be seen right down to the water is if there is a temperature inversion and the sight line is deflected upwards. Otherwise, the stars finish some distance up from the horizon due to the large distance of dense air that the light has to pass through when the stars are on the horizon.
This being the case, the lookouts were not seeing anything further than about half a mile in front because their sight line was actually deflected up into the night sky. Anything on the water further than half a mile away was invisible no matter how carefully they looked because they were actually looking over the top of whatever was on the water, in this case, a rather large iceberg.
Had that one factor not been present, the lookouts would have easily seen the iceberg when it was two or three miles away and thus the ship could have easily turned away. Under normal conditions. at a forward speed of 23 knots, the iceberg would have been visible for more than five minutes before the situation became critical.
The ship was not going too fast given that the sea was dead calm and conditions were crystal clear. It was just going too fast in hindsight considering that they really only had a visual horizon of half a mile. That is the distance estimated at when the lookout actually saw the iceberg.
Had they know that they would have slowed down.
They didn't select the incompetent dregs of the merchant navy to captain ships like that.
Remove that one factor and the ship would not have hit the iceberg and thus would not have sunk.
Remove the coal fire or numerous other incidental factors and it still would have sunk but maybe more slowly.
Interesting none the less.
In that case they should have been able to see the Chicago skyline due to straight line of sight. And therefore they should have been slowing down as the lookout up in the crows' nest called out "land ahoy!".
LOL. Its always the Chicago skyline!
Hah, this is like a bunch of in-jokes without anyone actually coming out and saying it was the Illuminati.... oh wait, that will probably arrive at 4am.
Select to expand quotemineral1 said..
What's the alternative you talk about Lewis ?
Please don't say Gas. the system sold out to the Multi Nationals years ago.
Thorium maybe?
well.....to get the gas, we could dig up the coal and extract the gas from it - and use that gas instead of burning coal 
as a side note - back in the day, a car club mate of ours worked for the Fremantle Gas Company, which supplied "coal gas" to the freo area.
Funnily enough - the coal gas was sold cheaper than the rest of the states natural gas, and gave off more heat = meaning less used.
Then the Freo gas co. was taken over and shut down - and their customers had to use natural gas which cost more, and wasn't as efficient.
The ship sank because all us humans said it was unsinkable ,,, waaaay to cocky...
im going to paddle out at pipeline and get wave of the day..........yeah on the head
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said..
totally an insurance job
Bingo! even Paddy the Pig agrees....
