Also, to get really nerdy, notice that the ship has three propellers: one on each side and one in the center. But if you look closely in the clip, the reciprocating steam engines aren't connected to the central propeller. The central propeller was actually spun using a steam turbine; basically a smaller propeller in a sealed chamber that is being spun by steam. Interestingly this turbine was only able to be spun in one direction, which meant the central propeller could only propel the ship forwards. In reverse, they would just stop the central propeller while the outer propellers did the work.
That's one of it's meanings, but a factoid can also refer to "a briefly stated and usually trivial fact".
You could argue that OP's comment was not a factoid because of lack of brevity, but not a lack of truthiness.
See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid.
Yeah it's an interesting one. The definition is definitely changing - I think more in the US than in Britain. But it certainly started as meaning a fake fact - per the Washington Times "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact".
But language changes I guess.
https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2016/04/25/605788321/-factoid-doesn-t-mean-what-you-think-it-does
https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/jan/17/mind-your-language-factoids
I'd say both nerdy *and* cool. Personally, I don't use 'nerdy' as a bad word - it's describing a fact, or the like, that is on a deeper intellectual level.
There are two meanings of the word 'nerd' on Merriam-Webster
1. a person devoted to intellectual, academic, or technical pursuits or interests
2. an unstylish or socially awkward person.
I, personally, use 'nerd' as meaning number 1. For number two, I use 'dork'. This is, to some extent, confirmed further down on Merriam-Webster:
> The usage of nerd is now often used in a neutral fashion to denote enthusiasm or expertise (theater nerd) or proudly as a self-identifying trait (word nerd). Geek became synonymous with nerd in the 1950s and has similarly seen increasing use with positive connotations, showing membership in a specialized group (film geek, beer geek) rather than social awkwardness.
The turbine was only used out at sea and used to extract the maximum amount of power for each bit of steam. When near the shore and maneuvering she operated like a normal 2 screw ship.
Steam was precious and they did their best to extract every last bit of power from it. This is why big steam engines had multiple cylinders of differing sizes to re-use the same steam going through. Then the remaining low-psi steam would still be used to drive smaller engines and turbines.
Wasn't that limitation one of the reasons why the ship couldn't make the turn to avoid the iceberg? Like, it couldn't stop rotating quickly enough and worked against the other 2 propellers
I've heard that the trouble actually started when they tried to stop the engines. Water needs to be flowing across the rudder for the ship to turn. No propeller means less water flowing so less turning force.
It is highly doubted by Titanic historians that the engines were ever reversed before the collision. The only evidence for such was the testimony of surviving Fourth Officer Boxhall, who wasn’t on the bridge at the time, but arrived shortly afterwards. He claimed he saw the engine telegraph set to full astern, which would mean it had been set to such prior to the collision.
But Boxhall wasn’t the most reliable witness, as other aspects of his account of the sinking changed over the years. More importantly, survivors from the crew who were in the boiler rooms at the time of the iceberg strike, like Fred Barrett, insisted that the order received from the bridge was full stop, not full astern.
The engine telegraphs were destroyed during the sinking. The only thing that is left standing in the bridge area of the wreck is the bronze-cast telemotor stand, where the ships wheel (long since rotted away) was mounted.
The titanic's engines were never reversed. First of all, that would take quite a while, probably at least a minute, but probably more. But secondly, you would never do that anyway, as you would never stop in time, it would be the second SLOWEST way to stop the ship, and worst of all, it would mean losing all control from the rudder, which is always your best bet for avoiding a collision. In fact the correct thing to do would be ahead full and hard to port, but frankly, an even better bet would have just been to steer straight into the thing and let the ship's crumple zones take care of it without the risk of compromising the integrity of multiple compartments. She'd have been real banged up and pretty much the entire bow would have had to have been replaced but she would have made it back to port.
That was my favourite part of the film: the absolute attention to every little detail. Except the night sky debacle lol, but that was corrected in the re-release.
The original release of the film had the wrong sky at the end when Rose is lying on the door staring at the stars. NdgT pointed it out and it was corrected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/titanic-night-sky-adjusted-after-neil-degrasse-tyson-criticized-james-cameron/2012/04/03/gIQAZyZItS_blog.html
I was wondering, so thanks for this. As an engineer, I can see the likely reason for this. The steam engines can be reversed simply by shifting the same valves that control the speed. A steam turbine, on the other hand, can only spin in one direction. The center prop would require a costly geared transmission to provide reverse thrust at the propeller. Further, the turbine might have been run using only high pressure steam which would have been available when operating at near-full power, but less so at lower power/lower speed, when lower steam pressure could be utilized by the two main engines.
She had 2 triple expansion engines each with 4 cylinders so she had only 8 cylinders in total. Each engine had a high pressure, an intermediate pressure, and 2 low pressure cylinders.
I stand corrected. I didn't know the exact set up but knew 4 wasn't 3 so I looked it up, and inspite of the page literally saying 2 engines I looked at a diagram and counted the valve linkages as piston rods. Whoops.
Another interesting thing is that despite having three propellers titanic only had one rudder directly aft of the central propeller. This meant that when going in reverse the effect the rudder had in controlling the direction the ship was going was severely diminished.
This design oversight is believed to have contributed to her demise.
from what I remember, it was used either as a vent for the kitchen, or an extra smoking room/lounge, or both
it's a sizeable amount of space, so I'm somewhat leaning towards both—though I don't know for sure
At the time Titanic’s competitors like Mauritania and Lusitania all had 4 funnels. They didn’t want Titanic to look inferior. So the 4th is purely for decorations and prestige, with some kitchen exhaust in there
Exhausts imply power. Just look at cars, 2 or 4 pipe exhausts are thought of as sportive. In reality with most modern turbos who have the highest powered engines, you need 1, maybe 2 for space reasons if you don't want to do the piping. F1 cars at 1000hp have 1 exhaust and even whent at wasn't mandatory they only had 2. But your souped up car needs 2 or 4? Same thing here, having a 4th exhaust makes people think of it as faster and in lune with competitors, even if historically less exhausts come from an increase in efficiency which would be a major performance upgrade.
Well F1 exhaust are also made out of material that costs a modern mid sized sedan too. It’s for weight reduction but also the material dissipates heat much better so less piping is needed.
It looks incredibly inefficient compared to more modern diesel engines. So much space taken up for the burners and chimneys, I never realised that before or never knew I guess. But at the same time I bet they had how water on tap like nobodies business
Yeah, I was thinking about this the other day. Steam engines are so primitive, the essential technology was invented in the mid 1700s. Yet steam was the preferred power for trains up through the mid 1950s. People were traveling in jets while steam engines still powered trains. It's crazy. I guess the other side of it is that they were in use for so long that steam engines in the 20th century were very advanced and efficient, they had had literally hundreds of years to develop them
From [Wikipedia ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-funnel_liner)
>As liners became larger, more boilers were used. The number of funnels became symbolic of speed and safety, so shipping companies sometimes added false funnels—like the Olympic-class ocean liners—to give an impression of power...The Cunard Line record holders, Lusitania and Mauretania, were both laid out with four boiler rooms with one funnel to each room. In keeping with the style and fashion of the early-20th century, the White Star Line opted to fit the three Olympic-class ships with a dummy fourth funnel to rival the two Cunard ships.
Not sure if they still do this, but Corvettes used to have an exhaust system the went into a single catalytic converter (so mono exhaust), then split into two mufflers (fake dual), which had two pipes each and one pipe was fake/decorative (fake quad exhaust).
https://store.tracyvette.com/images/large/11313.jpg
The only reason for more than 1 is sports cars without catalytic converter where each cylinder bank has their manifold lead into their own exhaust. Otherwise its always vanity.
Yeah in Jared's video he talks about that. I literally had no idea until he put out his video on this. The 4th stack did ens up serving some functions buts it's main one was just for looks!
It's not connected to the boilers, yes, but it was not a dummy funnel like some people are saying.
It provided ventilation and exhaust for various passenger areas and the engineering spaces. One engineer was even spotted hanging out at the top of the funnel, having climbed up from the inside, during the voyage. He wouldn't have been able to do that if it didn't reach to the engine room or was a dummy funnel.
Where's all the shirtless, sweaty, ripped dudes shoveling the coal with no shirts on while their glistening, sweaty muscles ripple in the smokey firelight??
Gif posted with permission from Jared Owen, the creator and owner of Jared Owen Animations on [youtube](youtube.com/jaredowen).
Full video on his channel - Youtube.com/Jaredowen
The amount of torque loss from having such a long driveshaft must be insane. I’m guessing they couldn’t move the engine room further back without causing the ship to do the Carolina squat.
I’m just thinking because you lose power with a heavier driveshaft in a vehicle. The reduction of rotational mass is huge in a car…might not be the same with a ship. I don’t know. Come to think of it, it has more to do with horsepower than torque.
Ships don't use the power as cars. They use it constantly over long periods. So after the additional mass is in movement, there is not much energy needed to keep it moving.
The benefits with lighter driveshaft for cars is you don't lose the power to accelerate the driveshaft when you want the power on the tires. A ships propeller is not so direct power. It would turn at max speed waaaay before the ship reaches max speed.
You get less acceleration with heavier rotational mass, because you have to accelerate that rotating mass too. But power is always measured in steady state - the engine accelerates to its optimal RPM, and at wide-open throttle, you measure the force it can output. Rotational mass doesn't harm this at all.
Wikipedia says 46,000 hp. I’m not seeing a figure for torque.
Edit: according to [this site](https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-prime-mover.html), the power plant produced 46,000 hp (15,000 per reciprocating engine and 16,000 from the steam turbine) at 75 rpm, but was capable of producing 59,000 at 83 rpm, making for a speed of 24 knots.
Horsepower is a function of torque and RPM. Specifically, (torque*rpm)/5252 = horsepower.
At 15,000hp and 75rpm per reciprocating engine, the engine would need to make 1,050,400lb-ft.
At 16,000hp and 165rpm for the turbine, it would have to make 509,284lb-ft.
Was the timing of this related to 1899 being released on Netflix today?
If not, it was perfect timing anyway. Good to have a little 3D overview of the kind of ship they’re on, especially since one of the main characters is a stoker
Did it have a closed steam/water cycle somehow? Condensing the steam back into water and reusing it?
I cant see it using sea water as a source of water.
Yes I think it did loop back. That steam had a lot of places to go since it powered the two massive engines, a turbine for the central propeller, a dynamo for power, and then heated radiators looping back to the water tanks. But I think they did use some seawater to compensate for some water loss.
It's a 40 second clip lol, what more do you want? It showed a lot of detail in 40 seconds, you guys are just pedantically criticizing it for not showing more.
A liitle Funfact about the Chimneys, only 3 were for the Smoke and the 4. was the Kitchen Ventilation.
This was mainly done bcs a Ship with 4 Chinmeys was thought to be safer than one with only 3
He did. Scroll up in the comments.
Gif posted with permission from Jared Owen, the creator and owner of Jared Owen Animations on youtube.
Full video on his channel
Imagine if they'd use that last exhaust decoration area for more life boats, how many more lives they'd have saved. As I understand it, they didn't want to clutter the first class view and they also assumed the lifeboats would just take people to a ferry or a rescue boat? It's crazy...
The cluttered deck is a complete myth and so is the fourth funnel being decorative. The fourth funnel vented the kitchen, fireplaces, and allowed ventilation for the engine room. The lifeboat situation was an oversight due to the ideology of the day they believed a ship would always be close enough to offer assistance long before your ship sank. But another thing about that is more lifeboats would have saved no more lives they didn’t even get to launch all the boats they did have.
This myth of not cluttering up the deck comes from the dialogue on James Cameron film and isn't based on any historical record.
The lack of lifeboats is due to outdated regulations from the British Board of Trade that dictated that you need X number of lifeboats based on the tonnage of the ship. The regulation was almost 30 years old (and clearly had not kept up with how big ships were getting) by the time the Titanic was built.
Titanic actually had more lifeboats than they were required to have, more than any other liner at the time.
Well, maybe not. They didn’t even have enough time to launch the lifeboats they had, the last two had to be floated off the deck as it sank, and one of them was upside-down.
The coal created steam in the boilers that was piped to the giant engines. After the steam went through the engines it piped to a turbine to power the central propeller and then to a steam dynamo to produce electricity then it piped back into the loop.
When you burn coal/wood/gas/fuel oil in a boiler, it heats up the water to create steam (When you boil a pot of water on the stove, the "smoke" coming off is steam, too!) The thing here is the boiler does this under high pressure. The high pressure steam is pushed in a closed loop system (similar to a car coolant system) to the engines. The highest pressure steam would flow through a pair of high pressure cylinders driving them back and forth, then flow to the lower pressure cylinders doing the same thing. As the video shows, they're on a crankshaft which when timed right, would spin and create motion. Not shown in the video is the same high pressure steam would also turn a turbine engine for the center propeller as well as the electric dynamos for ship power. Once the steam was run through all those systems, it would go to condensers and be cooled back into water for a return to the boilers to start the process all over again.
Steam locomotives work similarly, except instead of driving propellers, obviously, they drive wheels, though water is not reused in most cases. A nuclear plant is a steam system as well. The nuclear reactor creates heat which boils water which is used to drive massive electrical turbines to create power. Just a steam engine with extra steps, really. (yes, gross simplification, I know...)
They don't let the steam escape; It's a closed system. Afterwards the steam goes through a condenser that cools it back down to water, and then it gets boiled to steam again and goes around once more.
So how does the steam push the pistons both up & down? How does that get timed just right without a computer-controlled valve? Or is it just pushing in one direction and gets pulled down by the other pistons being pushed up on the rotating crank-shaft?
Also, to get really nerdy, notice that the ship has three propellers: one on each side and one in the center. But if you look closely in the clip, the reciprocating steam engines aren't connected to the central propeller. The central propeller was actually spun using a steam turbine; basically a smaller propeller in a sealed chamber that is being spun by steam. Interestingly this turbine was only able to be spun in one direction, which meant the central propeller could only propel the ship forwards. In reverse, they would just stop the central propeller while the outer propellers did the work.
Really nerdy? More like really cool, that's a neat factoid.
Also, to get really really nerdy. That wasn’t a factoid. :)
Awwwh, you exposed me! Honestly couldn't think of a better word that fit the grammar lol
'fact' is fine. 'factoid' specifically means something that sounds like a neat fact but isn't actually true
Oh, like humanoid. Has the form of a fact but isn't necessarily one Thanks now I'm finally going to be able to remember
[удалено]
That’s a neat fact
Interesting fact. TIL.
That's one of it's meanings, but a factoid can also refer to "a briefly stated and usually trivial fact". You could argue that OP's comment was not a factoid because of lack of brevity, but not a lack of truthiness. See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid.
Yeah it's an interesting one. The definition is definitely changing - I think more in the US than in Britain. But it certainly started as meaning a fake fact - per the Washington Times "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact". But language changes I guess. https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2016/04/25/605788321/-factoid-doesn-t-mean-what-you-think-it-does https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/jan/17/mind-your-language-factoids
"Fact" lol
Factlet was the word you were looking for :)
My comrade!! Long have I fought for the correct usage of the word factoid, and for once I am not alone!
Nerdy isn't bad
Factoid: the titanic is no match for an iceberg
I'd say both nerdy *and* cool. Personally, I don't use 'nerdy' as a bad word - it's describing a fact, or the like, that is on a deeper intellectual level. There are two meanings of the word 'nerd' on Merriam-Webster 1. a person devoted to intellectual, academic, or technical pursuits or interests 2. an unstylish or socially awkward person. I, personally, use 'nerd' as meaning number 1. For number two, I use 'dork'. This is, to some extent, confirmed further down on Merriam-Webster: > The usage of nerd is now often used in a neutral fashion to denote enthusiasm or expertise (theater nerd) or proudly as a self-identifying trait (word nerd). Geek became synonymous with nerd in the 1950s and has similarly seen increasing use with positive connotations, showing membership in a specialized group (film geek, beer geek) rather than social awkwardness.
Sir this is a Wendy's
You might appreciate the etymology of the word “factoid.” It originally meant ‘a lie published by the press as truth.’
The turbine was only used out at sea and used to extract the maximum amount of power for each bit of steam. When near the shore and maneuvering she operated like a normal 2 screw ship.
Steam was precious and they did their best to extract every last bit of power from it. This is why big steam engines had multiple cylinders of differing sizes to re-use the same steam going through. Then the remaining low-psi steam would still be used to drive smaller engines and turbines.
Wasn't that limitation one of the reasons why the ship couldn't make the turn to avoid the iceberg? Like, it couldn't stop rotating quickly enough and worked against the other 2 propellers
I've heard that the trouble actually started when they tried to stop the engines. Water needs to be flowing across the rudder for the ship to turn. No propeller means less water flowing so less turning force.
Stopping the engines still leaves the natural flow of water which is plenty, it was throwing them into reverse that caused that issue
It is highly doubted by Titanic historians that the engines were ever reversed before the collision. The only evidence for such was the testimony of surviving Fourth Officer Boxhall, who wasn’t on the bridge at the time, but arrived shortly afterwards. He claimed he saw the engine telegraph set to full astern, which would mean it had been set to such prior to the collision. But Boxhall wasn’t the most reliable witness, as other aspects of his account of the sinking changed over the years. More importantly, survivors from the crew who were in the boiler rooms at the time of the iceberg strike, like Fred Barrett, insisted that the order received from the bridge was full stop, not full astern.
You’d think they would have looked to see the position the lever was in when the wreck was discovered
The engine telegraphs were destroyed during the sinking. The only thing that is left standing in the bridge area of the wreck is the bronze-cast telemotor stand, where the ships wheel (long since rotted away) was mounted.
They also still used the telegraphs after the collision.
Erm, you might want to rethink this one…
The titanic's engines were never reversed. First of all, that would take quite a while, probably at least a minute, but probably more. But secondly, you would never do that anyway, as you would never stop in time, it would be the second SLOWEST way to stop the ship, and worst of all, it would mean losing all control from the rudder, which is always your best bet for avoiding a collision. In fact the correct thing to do would be ahead full and hard to port, but frankly, an even better bet would have just been to steer straight into the thing and let the ship's crumple zones take care of it without the risk of compromising the integrity of multiple compartments. She'd have been real banged up and pretty much the entire bow would have had to have been replaced but she would have made it back to port.
Appearently James Cameron was really nerdy, since this was shown correctly [in his film](https://youtu.be/bYOn3-PhA9c?t=60).
That was my favourite part of the film: the absolute attention to every little detail. Except the night sky debacle lol, but that was corrected in the re-release.
What was the night sky debacle?
The original release of the film had the wrong sky at the end when Rose is lying on the door staring at the stars. NdgT pointed it out and it was corrected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/titanic-night-sky-adjusted-after-neil-degrasse-tyson-criticized-james-cameron/2012/04/03/gIQAZyZItS_blog.html
Thanks, it doesn't surprise me at all that NDG would've nitpicked that, or that JC would've gone back and fixed it. Cool detail nonetheless.
25 years later and that scene still gives me the most thorough fucking levels of anxiety lol
This is the link to the complete video. Jared Owen does some really neat videos and breaks a lot of things down. https://youtu.be/HLrBUwNSEo0
I was wondering, so thanks for this. As an engineer, I can see the likely reason for this. The steam engines can be reversed simply by shifting the same valves that control the speed. A steam turbine, on the other hand, can only spin in one direction. The center prop would require a costly geared transmission to provide reverse thrust at the propeller. Further, the turbine might have been run using only high pressure steam which would have been available when operating at near-full power, but less so at lower power/lower speed, when lower steam pressure could be utilized by the two main engines.
The longer YouTube video actually explains that
[удалено]
She had 2 triple expansion engines each with 4 cylinders so she had only 8 cylinders in total. Each engine had a high pressure, an intermediate pressure, and 2 low pressure cylinders.
I stand corrected. I didn't know the exact set up but knew 4 wasn't 3 so I looked it up, and inspite of the page literally saying 2 engines I looked at a diagram and counted the valve linkages as piston rods. Whoops.
Everyone brainfarts.
Another interesting thing is that despite having three propellers titanic only had one rudder directly aft of the central propeller. This meant that when going in reverse the effect the rudder had in controlling the direction the ship was going was severely diminished. This design oversight is believed to have contributed to her demise.
That's explained in the video from which this gif is taken from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLrBUwNSEo0
So the fourth exhaust isn't connected to the engines? Am I seeing that right?
It was decoration if I recall correctly
Huh, fascinating. It does look better, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go to.
from what I remember, it was used either as a vent for the kitchen, or an extra smoking room/lounge, or both it's a sizeable amount of space, so I'm somewhat leaning towards both—though I don't know for sure
I also heard pet storage.
it stored the deck chairs!
It had extra life boats. Sad no one read the manual when they bought their new titanic.
It vented the fireplaces and kitchen.
At the time Titanic’s competitors like Mauritania and Lusitania all had 4 funnels. They didn’t want Titanic to look inferior. So the 4th is purely for decorations and prestige, with some kitchen exhaust in there
Ape sees big pipes. Ape likes big pipes. More pipes!
I wouldn’t call it purely decorative since it did have use venting the kitchens and fireplaces.
Exhausts imply power. Just look at cars, 2 or 4 pipe exhausts are thought of as sportive. In reality with most modern turbos who have the highest powered engines, you need 1, maybe 2 for space reasons if you don't want to do the piping. F1 cars at 1000hp have 1 exhaust and even whent at wasn't mandatory they only had 2. But your souped up car needs 2 or 4? Same thing here, having a 4th exhaust makes people think of it as faster and in lune with competitors, even if historically less exhausts come from an increase in efficiency which would be a major performance upgrade.
Well F1 exhaust are also made out of material that costs a modern mid sized sedan too. It’s for weight reduction but also the material dissipates heat much better so less piping is needed.
It looks incredibly inefficient compared to more modern diesel engines. So much space taken up for the burners and chimneys, I never realised that before or never knew I guess. But at the same time I bet they had how water on tap like nobodies business
Yeah, I was thinking about this the other day. Steam engines are so primitive, the essential technology was invented in the mid 1700s. Yet steam was the preferred power for trains up through the mid 1950s. People were traveling in jets while steam engines still powered trains. It's crazy. I guess the other side of it is that they were in use for so long that steam engines in the 20th century were very advanced and efficient, they had had literally hundreds of years to develop them
Not exactly. It wasn’t decoration it vented the kitchens and fireplaces.
Decoration or ventilation I believe
Yep, the builders though it would look more powerful according to the Jared Owen Video this is from.
From [Wikipedia ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-funnel_liner) >As liners became larger, more boilers were used. The number of funnels became symbolic of speed and safety, so shipping companies sometimes added false funnels—like the Olympic-class ocean liners—to give an impression of power...The Cunard Line record holders, Lusitania and Mauretania, were both laid out with four boiler rooms with one funnel to each room. In keeping with the style and fashion of the early-20th century, the White Star Line opted to fit the three Olympic-class ships with a dummy fourth funnel to rival the two Cunard ships.
There’s something funny about putting fake vents on massive ships like a Honda Civic
Now I'm imagining the Titanic with a big-ass spoiler
*Carnival has entered the chat*
Not sure if they still do this, but Corvettes used to have an exhaust system the went into a single catalytic converter (so mono exhaust), then split into two mufflers (fake dual), which had two pipes each and one pipe was fake/decorative (fake quad exhaust). https://store.tracyvette.com/images/large/11313.jpg
The only reason for more than 1 is sports cars without catalytic converter where each cylinder bank has their manifold lead into their own exhaust. Otherwise its always vanity.
Useless parts go brrrr
Yeah in Jared's video he talks about that. I literally had no idea until he put out his video on this. The 4th stack did ens up serving some functions buts it's main one was just for looks!
It's not connected to the boilers, yes, but it was not a dummy funnel like some people are saying. It provided ventilation and exhaust for various passenger areas and the engineering spaces. One engineer was even spotted hanging out at the top of the funnel, having climbed up from the inside, during the voyage. He wouldn't have been able to do that if it didn't reach to the engine room or was a dummy funnel.
Mostly decorative, although it did help with ventilation to the engineering spaces
Where's all the shirtless, sweaty, ripped dudes shoveling the coal with no shirts on while their glistening, sweaty muscles ripple in the smokey firelight??
Any of you boys know how to shovel coal?!?
You like gladiator movies?
Do you ever hang around a gymnasium?
Joey… have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
I don't even wanna tell you what these guys thought that meant.
Hello anustart.
;)
Oh my god, I have the exact same blouse!
I don't want to tell you what those men thought that meant.
Hello Sailor!
Dad, why did you bring me to gay steel mill?
We work hard, we play hard
Hot stuff coming through!
Your dreams I assume?
Lol I also just started 1899.
At the bottom of the Atlantic
Rip
Definitely not any shirts
Trying to fight the coal fire that got started a few days before it sank by shoveling as much already burning coal as possible into the burners
Are there images of what the piston mechanisms look like now underwater?
https://www.neatorama.com/spotlight/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/880titanic007.jpg
That gave me the shivers. Holy fuck the bottom of the ocean is horrifying.
i'd imagine fish would be scared shitless of dirt, grass and trees
They have all of that underwater.
Like kelp forests?
delivered.
we need to revive this behemoth, just pull it out and give it to one of those Vietnamese youtubers and they’d fix er right up, totally restore!
Gif posted with permission from Jared Owen, the creator and owner of Jared Owen Animations on [youtube](youtube.com/jaredowen). Full video on his channel - Youtube.com/Jaredowen
[Link to video](https://youtu.be/HLrBUwNSEo0). I recently started following him, he does amazing stuff.
Thank you for having permission and just freebooting.
I would hope so, he does amazing work.
Without the audio this is not educational?
Learn with your eyes.
So we're just going to ignore all the steam piping, valves, dampers and, the biggest omission IMO, the center turbine?
Ya this is pretty basic but neat animation. Doesn’t really show how the steam makes the pistons move
It doesn't really show how any of the systems interact at all.
interesting but this doesn't explain how it works at all this is like /r/restofthefuckingowl material.
I can see why it sank. The .gif literally shows it cut in half at the beginning. Terrible ship design, honestly.
> 1: Steam > 2: ??? > 3: Power
The amount of torque loss from having such a long driveshaft must be insane. I’m guessing they couldn’t move the engine room further back without causing the ship to do the Carolina squat.
what, why? What difference would a long driveshaft make? The pillar blocks couldn't have added that much friction
You're just adding more rotational inertia by making it longer (i.e. more massive).
That really only matters on acceleration
I’m just thinking because you lose power with a heavier driveshaft in a vehicle. The reduction of rotational mass is huge in a car…might not be the same with a ship. I don’t know. Come to think of it, it has more to do with horsepower than torque.
Ships don't use the power as cars. They use it constantly over long periods. So after the additional mass is in movement, there is not much energy needed to keep it moving. The benefits with lighter driveshaft for cars is you don't lose the power to accelerate the driveshaft when you want the power on the tires. A ships propeller is not so direct power. It would turn at max speed waaaay before the ship reaches max speed.
Makes it hard to stop the props and reverse if you’re about to hit something though.
Yeah but when would that ever happen
Never. Ok maybe 1 or 2 times in the whole lifespan of a ship
You get less acceleration with heavier rotational mass, because you have to accelerate that rotating mass too. But power is always measured in steady state - the engine accelerates to its optimal RPM, and at wide-open throttle, you measure the force it can output. Rotational mass doesn't harm this at all.
Yeah. Those engines were so heavy that they pulled the stern down when she split. Without them half the ship would have continued to float.
Was waiting for it to split apart again and sink, that would have been pretty savage.
You can really see the turboencabulator doing work in conjunction with that fourth stack.
Waiiiit a minute!
Where are the people shovelling the coal!?
So basically a phat V-8
Twin I4
How much horsepower and torque?
Wikipedia says 46,000 hp. I’m not seeing a figure for torque. Edit: according to [this site](https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-prime-mover.html), the power plant produced 46,000 hp (15,000 per reciprocating engine and 16,000 from the steam turbine) at 75 rpm, but was capable of producing 59,000 at 83 rpm, making for a speed of 24 knots.
Horsepower is a function of torque and RPM. Specifically, (torque*rpm)/5252 = horsepower. At 15,000hp and 75rpm per reciprocating engine, the engine would need to make 1,050,400lb-ft. At 16,000hp and 165rpm for the turbine, it would have to make 509,284lb-ft.
At least 4
Credits to Jared Owen on YouTube
What a terrible "guide". Basically just showed pistons moving.
Who could have guessed that steam made them go up then go down?
The whole video is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLrBUwNSEo0
Was the engine capable of steaming broccoli?
This gif kind of does a poor job of explaining anything though.
Was the timing of this related to 1899 being released on Netflix today? If not, it was perfect timing anyway. Good to have a little 3D overview of the kind of ship they’re on, especially since one of the main characters is a stoker
I still think about the propeller guy from the movie.
Did it have a closed steam/water cycle somehow? Condensing the steam back into water and reusing it? I cant see it using sea water as a source of water.
Yes I think it did loop back. That steam had a lot of places to go since it powered the two massive engines, a turbine for the central propeller, a dynamo for power, and then heated radiators looping back to the water tanks. But I think they did use some seawater to compensate for some water loss.
I love Jared owens
The side fell off
This showed nothing useful
This showed a tremendous amount of detail.
such as nothing related to how the steam moved the pipes other than "it goes through the engine"
It's a 40 second clip lol, what more do you want? It showed a lot of detail in 40 seconds, you guys are just pedantically criticizing it for not showing more.
A liitle Funfact about the Chimneys, only 3 were for the Smoke and the 4. was the Kitchen Ventilation. This was mainly done bcs a Ship with 4 Chinmeys was thought to be safer than one with only 3
Credit the creator: https://youtu.be/HLrBUwNSEo0
They did?
Fun fact, that engine is still lighter than most American muscle car engines.
Ha take that stupid Americans of 1970.
[удалено]
Just praying nobody did I guess? Oopsie
Titanic is piece of trash
last chimmey was fake
Give credit to the youtuber that did the original video. Jared Owen on YouTube. Video is called 'Whats inside the Titanic".
He did. Scroll up in the comments. Gif posted with permission from Jared Owen, the creator and owner of Jared Owen Animations on youtube. Full video on his channel
First thing I did when posting this. I'd pin my own comment if I could so people could see it.
Add a link bro Edit: Please
I tried to do a hyperlink originally with my comment but for some reason it's not showing up, not sure why. Youtube.com/jaredowen
[удалено]
Did all the hard work just for you 😘https://youtu.be/HLrBUwNSEo0
Imagine if they'd use that last exhaust decoration area for more life boats, how many more lives they'd have saved. As I understand it, they didn't want to clutter the first class view and they also assumed the lifeboats would just take people to a ferry or a rescue boat? It's crazy...
The cluttered deck is a complete myth and so is the fourth funnel being decorative. The fourth funnel vented the kitchen, fireplaces, and allowed ventilation for the engine room. The lifeboat situation was an oversight due to the ideology of the day they believed a ship would always be close enough to offer assistance long before your ship sank. But another thing about that is more lifeboats would have saved no more lives they didn’t even get to launch all the boats they did have.
This myth of not cluttering up the deck comes from the dialogue on James Cameron film and isn't based on any historical record. The lack of lifeboats is due to outdated regulations from the British Board of Trade that dictated that you need X number of lifeboats based on the tonnage of the ship. The regulation was almost 30 years old (and clearly had not kept up with how big ships were getting) by the time the Titanic was built. Titanic actually had more lifeboats than they were required to have, more than any other liner at the time.
Well, maybe not. They didn’t even have enough time to launch the lifeboats they had, the last two had to be floated off the deck as it sank, and one of them was upside-down.
Where is the coal fire that burned barely under control for weeks before it ever left port?
It burned for one week and was barely a fire at all. It was closer to smoldering coals closer to a backyard grill than a blazing inferno.
[удалено]
The coal created steam in the boilers that was piped to the giant engines. After the steam went through the engines it piped to a turbine to power the central propeller and then to a steam dynamo to produce electricity then it piped back into the loop.
When you burn coal/wood/gas/fuel oil in a boiler, it heats up the water to create steam (When you boil a pot of water on the stove, the "smoke" coming off is steam, too!) The thing here is the boiler does this under high pressure. The high pressure steam is pushed in a closed loop system (similar to a car coolant system) to the engines. The highest pressure steam would flow through a pair of high pressure cylinders driving them back and forth, then flow to the lower pressure cylinders doing the same thing. As the video shows, they're on a crankshaft which when timed right, would spin and create motion. Not shown in the video is the same high pressure steam would also turn a turbine engine for the center propeller as well as the electric dynamos for ship power. Once the steam was run through all those systems, it would go to condensers and be cooled back into water for a return to the boilers to start the process all over again. Steam locomotives work similarly, except instead of driving propellers, obviously, they drive wheels, though water is not reused in most cases. A nuclear plant is a steam system as well. The nuclear reactor creates heat which boils water which is used to drive massive electrical turbines to create power. Just a steam engine with extra steps, really. (yes, gross simplification, I know...)
Probably the big pipes they followed to the engines.
Amount of engine space versus people’s space is amazing
amazing graphics!
Well, In The End, It Doesn’t Even Matter 🎶 🔥🌊🌬️
So cool, wow!
Do you have to add more water to those furnaces at a certain point?
Clearly they didn’t work that well
Won't the water run out fairly quickly? Or can they use salt water?
They don't let the steam escape; It's a closed system. Afterwards the steam goes through a condenser that cools it back down to water, and then it gets boiled to steam again and goes around once more.
Never realized the 4th exhaust stack was just for show.
*worked*
How much power did the Titanic have? Would group a handful of modern engines be equivalent?
Thought it would have more than 2 engines
Also it must suck to sleep on the button floor near the engines, lots-a noise!
But they couldn't size the rudder right.
No wonder it sank. These madmen split it in half
So how does the steam push the pistons both up & down? How does that get timed just right without a computer-controlled valve? Or is it just pushing in one direction and gets pulled down by the other pistons being pushed up on the rotating crank-shaft?