Ship Trivia Quiz

It sounds like the Mirror Landing Light system. First demonstrated with a handbag mirror and a line drawn with a lipstick. I remeber seeing a TV programme where the demonstration was re-enacted.

Here are the details... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TrevBrum#Mirror_Sight_Concept.

You know Subfixer, you are quite funny! When I was a kid I loved watching McGyver, me and friends thought he was a real genius!

You're actually thinking in the right direction with your signaling devices. The lipstick, torch and mirror were used to demonstrate an invention. It was quickly adopted by all navies that needed it. And although the inventor was British your country's navy is actually the one that most benefited from this invention, and still does.

alumni72 wrote:

For those of us in the US, a torch is a flashlight.   And I can't believe I didn't think of flogging - I'm reading Sharpe's Tiger at the moment.

Yeah, a flashlight in England is called a "torch", but bryan lives in the Netherlands. No telling what he is referring to, it's probably one of those mystery questions that will only be answered by George or woodburner. 

It's obvious that a flashlight and a mirror would be signalling devices but as to lipstick? Maybe, if you melted it, you could use it as a dye marker, or, since it is made with fishscales, it could used as fish bait or a lure. Or to leave waterproof messages or whatever. I guess we should ask McGyver.  

Anyway, what shade of lipstick? Survivors can't be choosers, you know.

For those of us in the US, a torch is a flashlight.

And I can't believe I didn't think of flogging - I'm reading Sharpe's Tiger at the moment.

Thank you George!

Next QUESTION:

How can a lipstick, a torch and a mirror be responsible for saving numerous lives at sea?

1871: flogging in peacetime was suspended.

1879: flogging in wartime was suspended.

Phew Bryan, not so much an answer more a dissertation, that one hurt!

Now a more straightforward one.

The years 1871 and 1879 must have been of great relief to sailors of the RN, why?

Ok then, I will put you out of your misery although by saying more power you actually answered the question (obviously without realizing it yourself). It is power that you need, and huge amounts of it! Faster ships required more power then engine manufacturers could actually develop.

Marine engine development did make giant leaps but because of the hydrodynamic properties of water the advancements that were made weren't very obvious. Why? How difficult can it be to increase the speed of a ship by one lousy knot!?

The answer is: very difficult. Let's take the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse as an example. Her two triple expansion reciprocating engines developed 31.000 shp powering two propellers. That power was sufficient to give her an average speed of 22.5 knots. If she however wanted to increase that average speed too let's say 23.5 knots then her engines would have to develop 25% more power to overcome the additional drag caused by the bow wave, something she was obviously not capable of. With the 33.000 shp engines of the Deutschland 1900 the limits of the reciprocating engine were reached. This ship suffered from severe vibrations.

The turbines of the Lusitania and Mauretania in 1907 developed 75.000 shp, enough to raise speed to about 25.5/26 knots. More power however also means more engines, more boilers, higher fuel consumption and the need for more propellers (4 instead of 2). All this resulted in a larger and therefore heavier ship which in turn caused even more drag.

And so a vicious circle developed: Bremen and Europa 1929, 100.000 shp, 28 knots. Rex 1933, 127.000 shp, 29 knots. Normandie 1937, 160.000 shp, 31.20 knots and it all more or less ended with the Queen Mary in 1938. To attain a speed of 31.69 knots she required a massive 200.000 shp! Only the continuous improvements in engine technology and especially power output could make this possible.

So, when I said: What was the cause of this disappointing achievement while other technologies seemed to make giant leaps? the right answer would have been that it wasn't a disappointing achievement at all, far from it actually! From 31.000 shp to 200.000 shp in 40 years, not to bad. Even today, 70 years after Queen Mary's record run, the large US carriers with 260.000 shp and unlimited fuel supply can't sail faster then +/-35 knots.

George, you're next.

More power, larger engines, but how would that relate to the original question regarding the reason for the lack of advancement

I think I'm losing the will to live, Bryan, we presumably can't see the wood for trees, so either an even bigger hint is required or you may have to put us out of our misery.

And what can a Turbine develop with far better fuel efficiency, less weight, much less vibration and by occupying far less space compared with a reciprocating engine?

...all the things you mention are merely refinements of an existing design (except hull-design, I have to admit that's a pretty huge refinement). You're forgetting one crucial point here! But I'm not giving up yet

Think about it this way: Despite being larger, heavier and less fuel efficient my wealthy neighbors' Mercedes-Benz S600 is much faster then my Ford Fiesta.

Why?

Hmmn, so it's not the props, not the fuel type, although I understand that the Btu value of coal was of increasing interest as the coal powered steam engine advanced thro' the 20th century.

What's left - hull design, boiler efficiency perhaps, increased pressure capability, super heated steam - this ones making my brain hurt Bryan

No, I'm sorry, but you're not thinking in the right direction (is that proper English ?).

Would the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse be capable of sailing at 31.5 knots if she had radar? Could more efficient propellers do that? Or oil fuelling instead of coal?

Think like an engineer!

Could it be the introduction of radar, enabling faster speeds further north through the ice, and at night?

Rick

Changing from coal to oil fuelling was a big improvement. So was the development of more efficient propellers.

But in the quest for speed those improvements were of relatively minor influence.

Coal to oil?

I was going to suggest WW1 and the Depression, but that wasn't technological.

It was a technological issue. The Two Way Rule isn't the key to the solution.

You have to concentrate on this part of the question: "...it took 41 years to gain an increase in speed of only 9 knots!"

from wikipedia,"In August 1936, Queen Mary captured the Blue Riband from Normandie, with average speeds of 30.14 knots (55.82 km/h) westbound and 30.63 knots eastbound. Normandie was refitted with a new set of propellors in 1937 and reclaimed the honour, but in 1938 Queen Mary took back the Blue Riband in both directions with average speeds of 30.99 knots (57.39 km/h) westbound and 31.69 knots eastbound, records which stood until lost to the SS United States in 1952."

does it have to do with her turbines?

Hmmn that's a tricky one Bryan,

I can't believe it's anything to do with technology.

Is it something to do with the Two Way Rule. Prior to the 1930s a ship had to beat the highest average rate of knots of both east and west crossings in a single voyage to win the trophy, this would presumably bring down the average prior to the 1930's.

Thanks George!

Next QUESTION:

In 1897 the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse of the German Nortdeutscher Lloyd won the Blue Riband by crossing the Atlantic with an average speed of about 22.5 knots.

In 1938 RMS Queen Mary did the same by crossing with an average speed of about 31.5 knots.

Despite being the major connection between Europe and The United States it took 41 years to gain an increase in speed of only 9 knots!

What was the cause of this disappointing achievement while other technologies seemed to make giant leaps?

PS Just to make a comparison: 1897 was still six years before the first flight of the Wright Brothers. In 1939 however the Messerschmitt Me 209 broke the air speed-record with 470 mph!

Well done David, that is the final answer. Didn't take very long between yourself and Bryan to solve this one, I can see I will have to stiffen up the questions!

I had expected the U boat and Peter Heywood elements to present the most difficulty.

Well done to both of you.

I think the notorious person is Peter Heywood. One of the sailors sentenced to hang for the Bounty mutiny. He was pardoned so that would count as forgiven, I think.

Here is a link to the story.

http://www.whitehaven.org.uk/information-historical.html#anchor13389

As Bryan has got most of the answer; if I am correct I think he should set the next challenge.

GeorgeW wrote:

...but was George Washington's Grandmother notorious?

Well, her last name was gale; quite notorious to most seamen I would think

Then it must be Admiral Sir Baldwin Wake Walker you're looking for.