Slashdot Mirror


Weak Rivets May Have Sped Sinking of Titanic

Pickens writes "Metallurgists studying the hulk of the Titanic argue that the liner went down fast after hitting an iceberg because the ship's builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. They say that better rivets would have probably kept the Titanic afloat long enough for rescuers to have arrived, saving hundreds of lives. The team collected clues from 48 Titanic rivets and found many riddled with high concentrations of slag, a glassy residue of smelting that can make iron brittle. To test whether this extra slag weakened the rivets, scientists commissioned a blacksmith to make rivets to the same specifications as those used to join steel plates in the hull of the Titanic. When the plates were bent in the laboratory, the rivet heads popped off at loads of about 4,000 kg. With the right slag content they should have held up to about 9,000 kg. Even a few failures because of flawed metal would have been sufficient to unzip entire seams, because as faulty rivets popped, more stress would have been placed on the good ones, causing them to break in turn. The shipbuilder, which is still in existence, denies it all."

15 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Titanic (2007) by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Running time: 194 min.

    If only it had gone down faster.

    1. Re:Titanic (2007) by aproposofwhat · · Score: 3, Funny
      One of my favourite quotes was from Lew Grade, producer of Raise the Titanic:

      'It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic'

      What a cast-iron star that man was :)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:Titanic (2007) by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Funny

      A movie so bad that not even Kate Winslett's tits can save it.

      Ah, one of the two highlights of the movie.

      The other, of course, was Leonardo Di Caprio freezing to death.

      Back to the topic at hand, though: I remember a documentary I saw right about the time Titanic came out, which listed faulty screws as a possible cause of the disaster. So what's exactly new here?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  2. I saw a special on Discovery about this by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I remember in a Discovery Channel special about the Titanic they mentioned that the plates were torn apart at the seams rather than gashed through by the ice. The amount of force with which the ship hit the ice was low enough that it should not have ruptured.

    So many years later, I wonder if it is worth it to hold the shipmaker accountable for the tragic loss of life. The stowaways in the galley climbing the railing at the bow shouting their claims to the throne of the earth were all taken under, and though they found love in the last hours of the Titanic, I can't help but wonder what sort of lives such rapscallions would have lived had they landed in New York City. Instead, at the bottom of the sea is the blue gem, shining brightly in the ghostly beams of the research submarines, so far away from the hands which let it fall to the seafloor in remembrance of the short, brilliant, flash of love in those few hours whose imprint upon Rose lasted her whole life.

  3. Madness I say. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Funny
    You really expect us to believe there were material defects sometimes in 1909? I call shenanigans!

    Now...if we can start second-guessing some more disasters, we can really get the lawsuits going.

  4. I also saw a special on Discovery about this... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 4, Funny

    Except in the version I saw the Titanic looked like a giant hot dog running aground in a sea of ketchup. Also, LSD was involved.

    1. Re:I also saw a special on Discovery about this... by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pfft, amateur. The version I saw included a police box and Kylie Minogue.

  5. Re:How is this new information? by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aye. That iceberg thing didn't have much to do with it after all, eh?

    --
    which is totally what she said
  6. Re:It was terrorism by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Recently Iran has quietly been buying thousands of Zanussi and Smeg freezers. The only possible reason for these purchases is that Iran plan to build a secret glacier with which they can terrorise the region and threaten the US.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  7. Look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If not for the weak rivets, we wouldn't have gotten to see Leonardo DiCaprio drown.

    Why is the ship-builder hesitating to claim such progress?

  8. Re:How is this new information? by dziman · · Score: 5, Funny

    maybe just the tip.

  9. Re:It was terrorism by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Silly boy. Iran doesn't have ice!"

    All the more reason to attack them now, if they get their hands on ice making technology we are sunk! Better use nukes to make sure we melt any secret bergs they have hidden in the desert.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  10. Re:How is this new information? by Bootarn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aye. That iceberg thing didn't have much to do with it after all, eh? The iceberg was made up. They blew up the hull themselves just to get rid of Leonardo DiCaprio.
  11. Re:Who caes about rivets... by Weedlekin · · Score: 3, Funny

    I often wonder why any car makers are still in business considering how many of their products fail spectacularly when driven into trees, stone walls, large pieces of concrete, and other vehicles.

    --
    I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  12. Re:How is this new information? by Digestromath · · Score: 3, Funny

    The hypocrisy of it all. First they blame an iceberg for sinking a ship and then turn around and say Global Warming is a bad thing. Rest assured if we nip this 'natural occuring ice' thing in the bud our ships will be safe once and for all!