Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

So did the USS Maine.[:D]

I'd heard it was spontaneously combusting coal dust...

I stand corrected, T. You are correct. Thanks.

It's amazing, really. In a tightly confined space, even FLOUR can self-ignite...

I want to try the flour thing (we live on a large cul-de-sac). My wife won't let me. She is a very intelligent lady with a lot of common sense.[:D][:D]

Put as much flour as you can in your mouth and wait for it to go off...[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

So did the USS Maine.[:D]

I'd heard it was spontaneously combusting coal dust...

Despite some official pronouncements by people like Rickover, the cause of the Maine's demise is still not really known.

Photos of the hull showed the armor, etc. was bent dramatically INWARD (photos which were still floating around on the web at one time). Rickover came up with a theory that water rushing into the hull caused this... put how armor is going to bend hull plates in like this is a nice trick. i do not believe this theory, and lots of other folks (including naval engineers) do not either.

However, no one has come up with a cogent theory on how anyone could have gotten planted a mine to sink the ship. So the reason of the explosion and sinking is unproven still.

You have to aerosolize the flower to get it to be explosive.

There was a game show i used to like as a kid ("Beat the Clock") that went off the air after some prop guy (iirc) came up with a prop bomb that just blew a bunch of flower into the air to simulate an explosion. Unfortunately for everyone in the studio, the stuff exploded immediately afterwards (it does need a spark, though).

EDIT:
It doesn't have to be that tightly confined - grain elevators, flower mills, etc. explode every once in a while. i don't think the TV studio was airtight or anything, either. i think the stuff is more like a fuel-air explosive, with the flower acting as the fuel.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Photos of the hull showed the armor, etc. was bent dramatically INWARD (photos which were still floating around on the web at one time). Rickover came up with a theory that water rushing into the hull caused this... put how armor is going to bend hull plates in like this is a nice trick. i do not believe this theory, and lots of other folks (including naval engineers) do not either.

It was not water itself, but shock wave reflected from bottom made this.

Sinking of French predrednaught Liberté, where it was quite known how it happened, showed the same syndrom: hull was bent inward. So in general that theory is quite plausible.

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Photos of the hull showed the armor, etc. was bent dramatically INWARD (photos which were still floating around on the web at one time). Rickover came up with a theory that water rushing into the hull caused this... put how armor is going to bend hull plates in like this is a nice trick. i do not believe this theory, and lots of other folks (including naval engineers) do not either.

It was not water itself, but shock wave reflected from bottom made this.

Sinking of French predrednaught Liberté, where it was quite known how it happened, showed the same syndrom: hull was bent inward. So in general that theory is quite plausible.

i am trying to find the photos - i remember reading the report some time ago (several years) so i guess i got the details of the theory incorrect.

HOwever, here are some problems with the coal explosion theory:

"The Maine never had an instance of spontaneous combustion on board, as did so many other ships of that time, and out of all the ships that had experienced spontaneous combustion, none was reported to have sustained serious damage. The type of coal carried by the Maine was New River coal, which is classified as low volatile bituminous coal and was not generally known to spontaneously combust. Bunker A16 was not situated by a boiler or any other external heat source, and normally spontaneous combustion does not occur unless there is a heat source to speed up the process. When Bunker A16 was inspected the morning of the disaster, the temperature was only 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and the Maines' oversensitive temperature sensor system did not indicate any dangerous rise in temperature. The discipline on the Maine was excellent, and regular inspections of coal bunkers for hazards, as well as the implementation of precautions for preventing bunker fires, were diligently carried out under the supervision of the cautious executive officer of the Maine, Richard Wainwright. These idiosyncrasies related to the coal bunker fire theory are what give rise to the constant debate of this argument’s legitimacy."

Some of the photos were in National Geographic as I recall. I am looking.

Other problems:

"First, many of the witnesses stated that they heard two distinct explosions several seconds apart. If anything else besides a mine had triggered the magazine explosion, then witnesses would have only heard one blast, because the only explosion would have been of the magazines. The only reason that two explosions would have been heard is if something besides the magazine had exploded, such as a mine. A coal bunker fire would have caused the magazines to explode, but it would not have caused an additional explosion.

Another piece of evidence of an external mine was the observations of divers who examined the bottom plates of the Maine. These bottom plates were all bent inward. If an internal explosion had occurred, the bottom plates would have been bent outward, away from the explosion. An external blast would have blown the plates inward, consistent with the evidence. A large hole in the side of the hull was also observed with the edges bent inward. On the floor of Havana Harbor, a large hole was noticed, presumably from the explosion, although it could be argued that an explosion of that magnitude would have put a hole in the harbor floor, regardless of whether the explosion was internal or external."

You could postulate that maybe the bottom plates were bent in from the reflected wave - there is no way this could have happened to a hole in the SIDE of the ship...

Lastly, we have this:

"In 1999, to commemorate the centennial of the sinking of the Maine, National Geographic Magazine commissioned an analysis by Advanced Marine Enterprises, using computer modeling that was not available for previous investigations. The AME analysis examined both theories and concluded that “it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and the detonation of the magazines.” Some experts, including some of Admiral Rickover’s team and several analysts at AME, do not agree with the conclusion, and the fury over new findings even spurred a heated 90-minute debate at the 124th annual meeting of the U.S. Naval Institute."

Robert;
Does this link help.

Bruce

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/lc_maine_salv.html

Thanks Bruce! Here is one photo of the bottom (but from another site, not the one i remember, though):

Now, note - i am note saying that a mine definitely sank the Maine... there are real problems with the mining theory, and so i think the whole thing is up in the air.

There are 4 major investigations - 3 say the ship was mined (or probably mined), and one (the Rickover report) says that coal bunker fires heated up the magazines causing them to explode (not coal dust explosion).

Here is another web site (Arlington National Cemetary). It gives an overview of what Robert has discussed in better detail. It does point to additional material for those who want to read more.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ussmaine.htm

Robert;
I did not mean to take the thread so far off topic.

Bruce

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

Here is another web site (Arlington National Cemetary). It gives an overview of what Robert has discussed in better detail. It does point to additional material for those who want to read more.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ussmaine.htm

Robert;
I did not mean to take the thread so far off topic.

Bruce

Hey - this is fine by me!

But if anyone does find a ship which survived more than 2 torps in a voyage (and got back to port, or otherwise didn't sink) - let me know!!! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Considering that she ate twenty-three heavy-calibre shells, yeah...

It helped that most of the shells exploded prematurely before full penetration.

Well the Germans BC's did do a lot better then their Brit Counterpart's who had a tendency to Blow up... 3 in one battle and the 4th over 20 yars later...

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Considering that she ate twenty-three heavy-calibre shells, yeah...

It helped that most of the shells exploded prematurely before full penetration.

That's always good. Faulty fuze settings or otherwise poor ammo handling plagued the Royal Navy at the time.