I can’t remember where but I recall hearing that the crow’s nest lookouts would not use binoculars for their standard search (i.e. trying to spot things dangerous to the ship). A quick back-of-the-napkin calculation (and some guesses) suggests the guys in the crow’s nest could see out to the horizon 10-15 miles away. They can easily spot an iceberg sufficient to threaten the ship at that distance in clear weather (which it was that night). No need for binoculars.
The problem is binoculars seriously narrow your field of vision which is something the guys in the crow’s nest would not want much preferring their own eyes. The purpose of the binoculars was for identification once you actually spotted something.
Captain Lord had spotted the Titanic but due to the mirage he identified it has a much smaller cargo ship and he saw no wires which would indicate it had a radio. Indeed Captain Lord thought the only ship in the area with a radio was the Titanic and he was sure the ship he was looking at was not the Titanic. If he figured that ship he was looking at had no radio then why wake the radio operator? Remember radios were not common back then.
That’s hyping up interest in a key and is more entertainment… more about the whole Titanic mystique. If you take down the the lore of the binoculars… well… that’s not good for rags talking about keys being auctioned, etc.
.
I haven’t been able to find any reference to the protocol for binocular usage by lookouts in the time frame 1912 or thereabouts, but have found a rather lengthy dissertation about U.S. Navy submarine doctrine during WWII.
The following is a quotation from “U.S. Pacific Submarines in World War II”, by William P. Gruner, discussing procedures used at night by bridge personnel.
At least, 30 years after the Titanic sank, binoculars were regularly used for something a lot more than merely seeing detail on something already spotted via the naked eye. And by folks whose lives really depended on seeing danger first.
And, based on personal and extensive observation, you can see a lot better at night with a good pair of 7X50’s than you can with the naked eye. No matter if the field of view is smaller.
I’m just curious, but have any of you Dopers ever gone out at night and seen firsthand the difference a pair of 7X50 binoculars can make? And then keep insisting that “Nah - binoculars would not have helped.”?
7x50’s are also called “night glasses” for a reason.
I’m no expert in binoculars but I used to sell them a long time ago and I seem to remember a bit of my training. Referring to 7x50 binoculars as “night glasses” is new to me but it makes sense. 7x50 binoculars binoculars would enlarge the view without making things meaningfully dimmer. Thus, you would get all the benefits of seeing greater detail at higher magnification without making your view appreciably dimmer and harder to perceive.
Binoculars always reduce the amount of light that gets transmitted into your eye but the amount of the reduction depends on a couple of factors. The first is the amount of light absorbed by the glass and prism. I understand that with good optics, the optics only reduce available light a few percent. A bigger factor in the amount of light getting to your eyes is the size of the binoculars’ exit pupil. You can calculate the exit pupil size in properly-designed binoculars by dividing the size of the objective lens by the power of magnification. So the exit pupil size of a 7x50 binocular is just over 7mm. I understand that is about the size of a fully-dilated human pupil. That means that when using those binoculars in the dark, when your eye is fully dilated, the binoculars will be transmitting light into as much of your eye as can receive it (5x35, another common binocular size, would work the same way at a lower magnification). Bigger objective lenses at that power of magnification wouldn’t make things any brighter for you, but a smaller one would make things darker. So 7x50 binoculars are optimal for use at night. They work fine in the day too.
First when the Californian tried to warn the Titanic about the ice, the response was " “Shut up, shut up! I am busy; …”
and “Slightly after midnight Second Officer Herbert Stone took watch from Groves. He, too, tried signalling the ship with the Morse lamp, also without success. Around 00:45 on 15 April, he saw a white flash appear from the direction of the nearby ship. First he thought it was a shooting star, until he saw another one. He saw five rockets before being joined by the apprentice. He called down the speaking tube to Captain Lord at 1:15, but it is unclear how many rockets he told him about. Lord asked if they had been a company signal. Stone said he didn’t know. Lord told Stone to tell him if anything about the ship changed, to keep signaling it with the Morse lamp, but did not request that it be contacted by wireless. Regulations of the time specified rockets (of any color) firing at one-minute intervals would signal distress. As fired from Titanic, at irregular and longer term intervals, there may have been considerable doubt as to their meaning.”
Removed by three decades from Titanic. Surfaced sub in war time looking for ships hardly considered a peer ship to an ocean liner scanning for ice bergs.
In the investigation reports, it was concluded that binoculars would have made no difference. It is incredibly hard to cite, but I will try. I’m one of the lunatics that read all the reports from the investigations of Titanic, and little things like the Warren Commission Report, 911 Report, etc.
But this is GQ.** If we’re citing, we have to focus in/around the practices established for ocean liners looking for ice bergs, circa 1912.**
“…Despite the two inquiries into the disaster, nothing clarified why the lookouts weren’t provided with binoculars, though there are many explanations such as the one that the White Star Line steamers’ lookouts didn’t particularly use them.[9] Besides, some experts have said that even using binoculars, neither Fleet nor Lee could have spotted the iceberg any sooner given the conditions of the night…”[11]
There are references cited within the above at link below.
Regarding the Lookout, Frederick Fleet, who was in the crows nest at the time:
Rockets were used for all types of signalling.
It was actually the Titanics radio operator that doomed his passengers, with his rude and ignorant response to the Californians message.
T&C, your analysis of the effect of binoculars is pretty much spot-on, except for the idea that they reduce the amount of light received by the eye. Actually, the amount of light they receive is governed by the area of the objective lens. In other words, a binocular with a 50mm objective, having an area of 1963 square mm, will gather in a bundle of light of that area. Then when it effectively condenses that the diameter of that bundle down to 7mm (an area of 51 square mm), it is increasing the amount of light to the eveball by a factor of 1963/51 = 51 times.
This is why the 7X50’s are the best type to use in low-light conditions. For instance, by the same analysis a pair of 7X35 binoculars (another popular size) would increase the light by only 19 times, while at the same time producing the diameter of the exiting light bundle to only 5 mm, thus wasting a large part of the eyeball’s capacity to receive light.
As T&C stated, the combination of 50 mm objective and 7 power, results in what is the best match with the size of the night-dilated pupil. 100X14’s would do the same, but would be to heavy and bulky for handheld use.
One of the major purposes of larger sizes of objective lenses is to increase the light-gathering ability. For instance, the telescope on Mount Palomar, with a 200" lens, will gather just slightly over half a million times as much light as the human eye.
Again, I’m not really an expert, so perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. I believe that binoculars don’t deliver more light to your eyes – they just deliver the light you want to see the most in the center of your field of view. Optimizing the exit pupil just means the binoculars will do it without also making the view appreciably dimmer.
You seem to have accepted my general idea above that the exit pupil is critical. So let’s think about this for a moment. Assume we are dealing with hypothetical 3x50 binoculars. The objective lens is the same size, so under your theory, it should collect and deliver to your eyes the same amount of light as the 7x50. But the exit pupil on 3x50 binoculars would be about 17mm. That is more than twice the diameter and five times times the surface area of your dilated pupil. So how does the 3x50 binocular get the rest of that light into your eye? It doesn’t. It would go to waste. It would deliver less light to your eyes than is collected by the large lenses.
In fact, I understand that’s basically what happens with the extra light you are talking about that is collected by the 7x50 binoculars. It gets thrown away because only light collected from within the binoculars’ narrow field of view gets delivered to your eye. The rest is thrown away. The light coming from within that field of view won’t be any brighter than the rest of the lighted objects. The light coming from outside that field of view is irrelevant. So the amount of light delivered by binoculars to the eye is reduced by a little because of dispersion and other effects in the lenses and prism, and perhaps more if the exit pupil is too small. It doesn’t increase. But the light that the binoculars do deliver is more useful to you.
This is interesting. Years ago I was on a motorcycle trip, cruising at 75 MPH on an interstate highway. It was 35F and raining. My bike had a fairing, and I had an electric vest under my jacket and heated grips, so I was able to continue the journey. With these aids I wasn’t hypothermic, but my legs were exposed to the slipstream and became quite a bit colder than my core. At some point I stopped for fuel, and found that walking was extremely difficult: my legs could only move very slowly. Darndest thing. I can well imagine that if I were in icy water, and my arms were as lethargic as my legs were, I would probably have drowned. Muscle power action depends on chemistry, and the rate of chemical reactions is highly dependent on temperature; cool those muscles down, and at some point they just won’t be able to exert useful amounts of force and/or speed.
I saw a program in which Bear Grylls [I think] was doing a hypothermia experiment, and one of the things that came out of it was that once his fingertip temperature dropped below mid 50s F, he no longer had enough dexterity to screw a wingnut.
“clear the bar”?