LUCIA FOR THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD. 45 



ship would incline longitudinally about an axis through the midship section instead 

 of about an axis through the center of gravity of the damaged water line." 



To meet this contention there is appended to this paper a complete mathemat- 

 ical review by my assistant, Mr. G. C. Engstrand, dealing with the stability calcu- 

 lations involved, with the full conviction that they will meet the critical review of 

 anyone interested. 



Paragraph i6 of the Winterhalter report is quoted as follows: — 



"The board is of the opinion that a vessel left in a condition such as that result- 

 ing from the assumptions made in paragraphs 14 and 15 would be a most critical 

 condition and would, sooner or later, sink. However, assuming that there remains 

 a sufificient number of buoyancy boxes undamaged, as a result of the explosion, to 

 keep the vessel afloat, she would be little better than a water-logged derelict and 

 would constitute a menace to other vessels. Even should she be taken in tow and 

 finally brought to port, she would, by reason of her extreme draught, 41 feet for- 

 ward, be able to enter comparatively few European or other ports, and her salvage 

 within any reasonable time would be difficult." 



This at least would seem to show a very reasonable probability that the Lucia 

 would remain afloat, and it would seem too bad that no consideration whatever was 

 given to the salvage of hull and to cargo under such conditions, it being pointed out 

 that a cargo of coal would not be at all damaged. The final conclusion of the board 

 is as follows : — 



"The board is of the opinion that the Lucia installation is not practicable for 

 general adoption under existing conditions by reason of: — (i) The questionable effi- 

 ciency as a preventive against sinking; (2) the reduction in cargo-carrying capacity, 

 both dead- weight and cubic contents; (3) the length of time required." 



From a strictly engineering point of view, to question the possibility of render- 

 ing a vessel unsinkable under ordinary conditions by such a method is beyond dis- 

 pute. It is simply a question of the quantity and strength of the buoyancy boxes 

 used. To question the carrying capacity of the ship when so fitted is to question the 

 simplest form of mathematical statement which can be made. 



Finally, in the general question of whether ships shall be made unsinkable at 

 sea or not, the time required to so construct a ship will have no bearing whatever 

 upon the problem. The writer is free to admit that military reasons may properly 

 control any action, commercial or otherwise, during a time of war, but at the same 

 time begs to state that only engineering and economic reasons will finally control th^ 

 question of rendering ships and cargoes safe against loss at sea. 



