Talk:SS United States

Speed

The speed issue came up again. This is pretty difficult. I know for a fact that the source I provided is a verifiable reliable source, but it's only verifiable if someone can find a copy of Nautilus, alumni newsletter of the Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan. The story began in the Fall 2003 issue, and was completed in the Spring/Summer 2004 issue. These seem to have vanished from any web presence, but I saw volume 25 online for a while -- long enough that we cited it easily. Is there anyone anywhere near the NA&ME building at the U. of Michigan who could check the stacks for these volumes? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another good resource for this would be this: The Speed of the SS United States, KANE, 1978. J. R. Kane was chief engineer at Newport News Shipbuilding at the time of the 1952 trials. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When the ship's specs were declassified, in 1968, the New York Times reported the newly-released info, including a top speed of "42 knots, or better than 48 land-miles per hour". (The math checks out; 42.000 knots = 48.3327 mph.) The article ran on page 35 of the August 16, 1968, paper, under the headline, "Secrets of the Liner United States".

I'm new to this topic, so let me ask a possibly dumb question: Is there reason to disbelieve the Times on this? The now-old messages above have dead links, and don't summarize the sources they were linking to. What did J.R. Kane say? What did Michigan Naval Engineering say?

The article currently gives 38.32 knots as the ship's maximum speed. Is there any reason I should not change that to the figure that the Times quotes the U.S. Navy as giving in 1968? TypoBoy (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My late father worked as a marine engineer for Babcock & Wilcox from 1946 to 1981, eventually becoming the Manager of Marine Sales, and later Technical Editor of SNAME. He worked on the boilers for the United States, whose powerplant was essentially that of an Essex Class Aircraft Carrier. He told me the top speed could reach 43 knots if needed. You have to remember that the the published power is based on the operating pressure of 925 lbs PSI, but the design pressure of the boilers is 1118 lbs PSI, and they were steam tested to 1356 PSI according to the bronze test plate from boiler number 1B which I have from him. It was removed when they removed two shafts during the failed conversion to make it a cruise liner in the 1980s. So it was easy to get about 25 percent more power out of the powerplant than was publicly stated. You need to keep that in mind when doing any calculations. GCW50 (talk) 9 Feb 2016

References

@Jpgordon: I am reviving this discussion as I have also found printed media (made since you started this discussion) that also states that the United States briefly attained speeds of 43kts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Hey a year later for a 13-year old Wikipedia discussion! I've reached out again to the U of Michigan Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering Dept. to try to get access to the "How fast did it go?" article that explains the ruse. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've finally gotten into a correspondence with the person responsible for Nautilus magazine at UM NAME. Funny how slow going this has been for such a fast going ship. Anyway, for the first time I have a .PDF of half of the "How fast did it go" article, and I'll have the other half as soon as my contact goes back into the office. Once I have the whole thing, I'll feel comfortable with a full citation like for any other academic journal; that certain volumes are unavailable online does not break WP:V. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Did this end up going anywhere? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I need to wake it up again; the department was all in COVID disarray in February. Thanks for reminding me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Anything new? I'm inclined to go with the NYT story if nothing else. I can't read it because of the paywall but if you have access maybe you could provide a quote? I got a copy from the library and will add it to the article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So basically, you know it's incorrect, but because re-finding the source has been difficult, you'll willingly put in sourced misinformation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've put in another query to the department. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know it's incorrect. You declined to answer TypoBoy's questions six years ago, so all I have is what's in the reliable sources, and that's what I put in the article, per Wikipedia policy. If you think the information is wrong, you've had six years to discuss your concerns, and you have not done so in that time. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I do know it's incorrect. So do many people. I've got an exact source [1] which has been moved and the moment isn't WP:V by me but is certainly WP:V for anyone with access to the NA&ME library at the U of M. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This source, mentioned above, is in a different place now: The Speed of the SS United States. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's another source discussing this. 38 knots. [2] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So, from that Nautilus issue:

Those with NA&ME degrees should look at Marine Technology, 1978, vol 15,2, paper by John R. Kane, "Speed of the United States." He gives top speed on builder's trials as 38.3 knots. We look at the speed power/curves he gives, and doing a little eyeball extrapolation, estimate the power for 43 knots would have to be...you try it, see if you agree with your editor's estimate of 1,000,000shp...But second, whence cometh that 43-knot figure? Well, boys will be boys, boys not above playing tricks on the gullible. Mr. Author-of-43-knots was aboard on the trial ship in which the 38.3 knot speed was reached. However, that speed was a SECRET until Kane was allowed to publish it some 25 years late. But everyone aboard wanted to know at the time. Well, those boys who would be boys were those pushing slide rules in the Data Center, so when reporters wandered in, hoping to learn something, we were Silent Sams, every one. Mr. Kane, boss of all data, stood by to make sure we did NOT speak to the curiousity seekers...But the slide rule boys concocted a sneaky joke. We made up a false speed/power data sheet showing that 43 knots, and "carelessly" left it on a table that was otherwise littered with innocent paper...We were sure one of the curious would see it...the data boys had done their dirty deed, and them that don't know their NA&ME have been telling it like it could never be ever since.

--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Do you have the full citation for that article? I think it's includeable with a sentence like "A graduate of the University of Michigan's Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering program later claimed that the Times number stemmed from a false piece of data deliberately left out as a joke for reporters to latch onto." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with just the Marine Tech citation. Of course it would be better without the paywall but I don't doubt that it says what we say it says. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, look what I just found. The Speed of the SS United States. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Jpgordon, I meant a full citation for the Nautilus article. I've already just added Kane! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've really no idea how to cite it. I've a photograph of the journal page, that's it. It's page 8 vol. 25 of Nautilus. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jpgordon! I've added it as a source. Feel free to tweak that! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Commodore plaque.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

the file was deleted. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Literature section

I'm starting to wonder what the purpose of the Literature section is and how it differs from Further reading. Ujifusa, for example, appears in Literature, several times in References, and in Further reading. Several other works also appear in two or more of these sections. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a ... great question. I'm guessing it was intended to be a list of books that are directly about the ship, but that should really be confined to the references/further reading. I think we can remove it after verifying we won't lose anything useful. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Steam production expressed as weight

Hello all- Can anyone clarify the meaning of the quantity "310,000 pounds of steam", as currently expressed in the first sentence of SS_United_States#Propulsion? To my non-boiler-room-experienced eye, that unit expression wants further explanation: Is it meant to indicate the weight of water vapor produced over a certain amount of time, for example? Thanks in advance for any help. Eric ^talk 16:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out!

In terms of boilers, output is measured in hours and vapor. So, the term should read along the lines of, '310,000 pounds of steam an hour...'

GGOTCC (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I made some changes to the sentence. Does it make more sense now? Best, GGOTCC (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I made a tweak that I think might improve the sentence flow. Eric ^talk 12:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is she in Philadelphia?

With United States (forcefully) making her a sudo-icon of Philadelphia, many readers will likely wonder why that is. The article does not explain how she rounded up in the city, and none of the sources I have explain why. Does anyone have information which may expand on the article's noticeable lack of coverage?

Thanks! GGOTCC (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There's Been A New Proposal. Should We Mention it?

There is now a proposal being made to bring the ship to New York City:

https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2024/12/ss-united-states-coalition-update/

Does this warrant a mention, or should we wait to see how it plays out first? TH1980 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We could certainly mention it, however John Quadrozzi's innitial plans have all been shot down as they have no backing. Thanks for the article! GGOTCC (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Where could Quadrozzi's proposal for the liner be mentioned in the article? In the same section about reefing? Or should it have its own section? TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

IMO, it would make sense to put it under "Artificial reef" as the plan occured during this chapter of her history and the proposal is directly related to preventing her from being reefed. The section also needs some updating, but it would ultimatly be up to you to decide what makes the most sense. GGOTCC (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)