11 ms·

Explorers given approval to retrieve Titanic’s Marconi telegraph

41 points by wallflower 6y ago

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
A terrible idea. "... it is conceivable that it could be restored to operable condition,” RMST said" It was a spark-gap transmitter? Which broadcasts noise across the entire radio spectrum. It would be illegal anywhere in the world to operate it today. Nonsense like that confirms that this effort is some circus act put together by a money-making shill of some kind. Not a sincere effort to preserve history.
- jbay808 6y ago
  Couldn't you build a Faraday cage to operate it inside?
  - the-dude 6y ago
    What is the point of putting a transmitter in a Faraday cage?
    - bobmcbobface 6y ago
      Then it's not illegal to operate.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Because you can have a recurving antenna in there with it? Better still, a £20 software defined radio so you can see the spectrum
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      Depends on the size of the cage, and what else is in it.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      For a nice museum exhibit.
- draw_down 6y ago
  Come on
- Luc 6y ago
  Somewhat contradicted by the Youtube videos of demonstrations of identical spark-gap transmitters in museums around the world. Minimal power, no antenna, etc.
- lb1lf 6y ago
  The Grimeton (SAQ) transmitter is based on an Alexanderson alternator and, hence, supplies orders of magnitude less harmonic energy than a spark gap transmitter, yet it still falls woefully short of current spectral purity standards. It still goes live a couple of times a year, though - on Christmas Eve and on the inventor's birthday. It is not inconceivable that a spark gap transmitter could operate under similar constraints - limited duration, schedule published well in advance &C. However, I believe it would be a mistake to restore it to working condition - at that point it is no longer the wireless set from the Titanic, but a replica built using some original parts. Meh.
catalogia 6y ago
> The recovery project has been vociferously opposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose representatives argued in court that the Titanic, sunk about 370 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, should be respected as a grave rather than mined as a museum supply. Frankly I agree. This isn't a scientific mission, or any sort of fact-finding mission; it's just looting. The plan to make a "wonderful exhibit" sounds like a cynical business ploy to get the public into museums with sensational exhibitions. Perhaps getting the public into museums is not such a bad thing, but is it such a good thing that it justifies this sort of looting? I don't really see how. Edit: I should say that I'm not categorically opposed to retrieving items from shipwrecks, if it's being done respectfully. But this plan with the Titanic doesn't seem very respectful to me. An example of what I'd consider reasonably respectful was the retrieval of the bell from the SS Edmund Fitzgerald: > The ship's bell was recovered from the wreck on July 4, 1995. A replica engraved with the names of the 29 sailors who lost their lives replaced the original on the wreck.[190] A legal document signed by 46 relatives of the deceased, officials of the Mariners' Church of Detroit and the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historic Society (GLSHS) "donated the custodian and conservatorship" of the bell to the GLSHS "to be incorporated in a permanent memorial at Whitefish Point, Michigan, to honor the memory of the 29 men of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald."[191] The terms of the legal agreement made the GLSHS responsible for maintaining the bell, and forbade it from selling or moving the bell or using it for commercial purposes. It provided for transferring the bell to the Mariners' Church of Detroit if the terms were violated.[191] Even this though caused some controversy.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  > This isn't a scientific mission, or any sort of fact-finding mission; it's just looting I have the same feeling. Initially I though it was to retrieve something that would provide insight or new information. For example retrieving a journal etc., but this really sounds like an artifact grab.
- wnissen 6y ago
  I know what you're saying. That is a very respectful way of honoring a wreck. And the treasure hunting that goes on in shipwrecks usually seems like well-financed looting. At the same time, in 50 years when most of Titanic has been consumed by metal-eating bacteria, we'll regret not doing more to preserve it. And preserving it means bringing items to the surface. The environment down there is going to degrade everything until it's a pile of rubble. Is that a superior remembrance or tribute? I can see why people would disagree, but for me I'd prefer to have stuff in a museum. Put together a group of curators and descendants and hash out a plan for what level of recovery and how it would be exhibited. It's a huge ship, you could bring back several room's worth and still leave the vast majority of it undisturbed as the tomb it is.
simplicio 6y ago
I guess I'm unsentimental, but I don't really see the point of restricting access to the wreck. People say it's a grave or memorial, but its not like it was built for that, its just the ship the people happened to be in when they died. We generally don't preserve crashed airplanes/trains/etc as memorials to the people that died in them. And its not like mourning family members or their descendants can visit it. If I or one of my family members die in a shipwreck, I can't imagine I'd have any particular problem with people salvaging from the same. If some future salvager wants to go salvage an iphone or whatever from the ship, I can't see why I'd be upset by the fact that my corpse is now resting in a ship with one less random knicknack in it. The radio seems like an interesting artifact that people will enjoy seeing, while at the bottom of the ocean it isn't doing anyone any good. If people want to bring it to the surface, let them have at it.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  Think of it as a graveyard. It's typically not ok to desecrate it, even if no one visits it.
  - simplicio 6y ago
    But it isn't a graveyard. And I think its a stretch to say that removing a radio is "desecration", which to my mind usually implies an intentional effort to disrespect the site.
    - smacktoward 6y ago
      It's the final resting place of the remains of something like 1,500 people. In what meaningful sense is it not a graveyard?
- catalogia 6y ago
  > People say it's a grave or memorial, but its not like it was built for that, its just the ship the people happened to be in when they died. Obviously the shipbuilders never intended for the ship to become a grave, but that's exactly what it became and the intent of the shipbuilders hardly seems relevant. As for plane and train crashes, the discrepancy in treatment is obviously a matter of tradition. Not all traditions are problematic relics of the past that need questioning though; particularly not traditions as harmless as respecting the deceased victims of ship wrecks. And if traditions are to be challenged, it should be for a better reason than profit. (Historic inquiry is a better reason to challenge this tradition, but doesn't seem to apply in this circumstance.) I think that devaluing harmless traditions like respecting the dead in the name of utility and profit demeans our society.
Stierlitz 6y ago
“Because of a backlog of personal messages, the wireless operators had ignored ice warnings from other ships.” Actually no, ice warnings* were passed onto the Bridge, which the Captain choose to ignore, as he was endevouring to beat the record for the fastest crossing on a maiden voyage. The lesson being, don't go full steam ahead into an ice field, in the middle of the ice season, at night under a moonless night. “On the 11th April, she received 6 warnings from ships stopped in, or passing through, heavy ice, 5 more on the 12th, 3 more on the 13th, and 7 on the 14th.” http://www.titanic-titanic.com/the-ice-warnings-received-by-titanic/ http://www.titanic-titanic.com/the-ice-warnings-received-by-...

41 points by wallflower 6y ago

A terrible idea. "... it is conceivable that it could be restored to operable condition,” RMST said" It was a spark-gap transmitter? Which broadcasts noise across the entire radio spectrum. It would be illegal anywhere in the world to operate it today. Nonsense like that confirms that this effort is some circus act put together by a money-making shill of some kind. Not a sincere effort to preserve history.

jbay808 6y ago
Couldn't you build a Faraday cage to operate it inside?
- the-dude 6y ago
  What is the point of putting a transmitter in a Faraday cage?
  - bobmcbobface 6y ago
    Then it's not illegal to operate.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Because you can have a recurving antenna in there with it? Better still, a £20 software defined radio so you can see the spectrum
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    Depends on the size of the cage, and what else is in it.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    For a nice museum exhibit.
draw_down 6y ago
Come on
Luc 6y ago
Somewhat contradicted by the Youtube videos of demonstrations of identical spark-gap transmitters in museums around the world. Minimal power, no antenna, etc.
lb1lf 6y ago
The Grimeton (SAQ) transmitter is based on an Alexanderson alternator and, hence, supplies orders of magnitude less harmonic energy than a spark gap transmitter, yet it still falls woefully short of current spectral purity standards. It still goes live a couple of times a year, though - on Christmas Eve and on the inventor's birthday. It is not inconceivable that a spark gap transmitter could operate under similar constraints - limited duration, schedule published well in advance &C. However, I believe it would be a mistake to restore it to working condition - at that point it is no longer the wireless set from the Titanic, but a replica built using some original parts. Meh.

catalogia 6y ago

> The recovery project has been vociferously opposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose representatives argued in court that the Titanic, sunk about 370 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, should be respected as a grave rather than mined as a museum supply. Frankly I agree. This isn't a scientific mission, or any sort of fact-finding mission; it's just looting. The plan to make a "wonderful exhibit" sounds like a cynical business ploy to get the public into museums with sensational exhibitions. Perhaps getting the public into museums is not such a bad thing, but is it such a good thing that it justifies this sort of looting? I don't really see how. Edit: I should say that I'm not categorically opposed to retrieving items from shipwrecks, if it's being done respectfully. But this plan with the Titanic doesn't seem very respectful to me. An example of what I'd consider reasonably respectful was the retrieval of the bell from the SS Edmund Fitzgerald: > The ship's bell was recovered from the wreck on July 4, 1995. A replica engraved with the names of the 29 sailors who lost their lives replaced the original on the wreck.[190] A legal document signed by 46 relatives of the deceased, officials of the Mariners' Church of Detroit and the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historic Society (GLSHS) "donated the custodian and conservatorship" of the bell to the GLSHS "to be incorporated in a permanent memorial at Whitefish Point, Michigan, to honor the memory of the 29 men of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald."[191] The terms of the legal agreement made the GLSHS responsible for maintaining the bell, and forbade it from selling or moving the bell or using it for commercial purposes. It provided for transferring the bell to the Mariners' Church of Detroit if the terms were violated.[191] Even this though caused some controversy.

me_me_me 6y ago
> This isn't a scientific mission, or any sort of fact-finding mission; it's just looting I have the same feeling. Initially I though it was to retrieve something that would provide insight or new information. For example retrieving a journal etc., but this really sounds like an artifact grab.
wnissen 6y ago
I know what you're saying. That is a very respectful way of honoring a wreck. And the treasure hunting that goes on in shipwrecks usually seems like well-financed looting. At the same time, in 50 years when most of Titanic has been consumed by metal-eating bacteria, we'll regret not doing more to preserve it. And preserving it means bringing items to the surface. The environment down there is going to degrade everything until it's a pile of rubble. Is that a superior remembrance or tribute? I can see why people would disagree, but for me I'd prefer to have stuff in a museum. Put together a group of curators and descendants and hash out a plan for what level of recovery and how it would be exhibited. It's a huge ship, you could bring back several room's worth and still leave the vast majority of it undisturbed as the tomb it is.

simplicio 6y ago

I guess I'm unsentimental, but I don't really see the point of restricting access to the wreck. People say it's a grave or memorial, but its not like it was built for that, its just the ship the people happened to be in when they died. We generally don't preserve crashed airplanes/trains/etc as memorials to the people that died in them. And its not like mourning family members or their descendants can visit it. If I or one of my family members die in a shipwreck, I can't imagine I'd have any particular problem with people salvaging from the same. If some future salvager wants to go salvage an iphone or whatever from the ship, I can't see why I'd be upset by the fact that my corpse is now resting in a ship with one less random knicknack in it. The radio seems like an interesting artifact that people will enjoy seeing, while at the bottom of the ocean it isn't doing anyone any good. If people want to bring it to the surface, let them have at it.

jonny_eh 6y ago
Think of it as a graveyard. It's typically not ok to desecrate it, even if no one visits it.
- simplicio 6y ago
  But it isn't a graveyard. And I think its a stretch to say that removing a radio is "desecration", which to my mind usually implies an intentional effort to disrespect the site.
  - smacktoward 6y ago
    It's the final resting place of the remains of something like 1,500 people. In what meaningful sense is it not a graveyard?
catalogia 6y ago
> People say it's a grave or memorial, but its not like it was built for that, its just the ship the people happened to be in when they died. Obviously the shipbuilders never intended for the ship to become a grave, but that's exactly what it became and the intent of the shipbuilders hardly seems relevant. As for plane and train crashes, the discrepancy in treatment is obviously a matter of tradition. Not all traditions are problematic relics of the past that need questioning though; particularly not traditions as harmless as respecting the deceased victims of ship wrecks. And if traditions are to be challenged, it should be for a better reason than profit. (Historic inquiry is a better reason to challenge this tradition, but doesn't seem to apply in this circumstance.) I think that devaluing harmless traditions like respecting the dead in the name of utility and profit demeans our society.

Stierlitz 6y ago

“Because of a backlog of personal messages, the wireless operators had ignored ice warnings from other ships.” Actually no, ice warnings* were passed onto the Bridge, which the Captain choose to ignore, as he was endevouring to beat the record for the fastest crossing on a maiden voyage. The lesson being, don't go full steam ahead into an ice field, in the middle of the ice season, at night under a moonless night. “On the 11th April, she received 6 warnings from ships stopped in, or passing through, heavy ice, 5 more on the 12th, 3 more on the 13th, and 7 on the 14th.” http://www.titanic-titanic.com/the-ice-warnings-received-by-titanic/ http://www.titanic-titanic.com/the-ice-warnings-received-by-...