I held together with your ideas to keep it light. The the upper story radiators all work huilding easily. A planking is afterwards minimize out .
For those who were not injured or killed outright by moving objects, there was little time to reach safety, especially for the men who were manning the guns on the main deck or fetching ammunition and supplies in the hold. The companionways that connected the decks with one another would have become bottlenecks for fleeing men, something indicated by the positioning of many of the skeletons recovered from the wreck.
What turned the sinking into a major tragedy was the anti-boarding netting that covered the upper decks in the waist the midsection of the ship and the sterncastle. With the exception of the men who were stationed in the tops in the masts, most of those who managed to get up from below deck were trapped under the netting; they would have been in view of the surface, and their colleagues above, but with little or no chance to break through, and were dragged down with the ship.
According to the unnamed Fleming, the ship had fired all of its guns on one side and was turning to present the guns on the other side to the enemy ship, when she was caught in a strong gust of wind, heeled and took in water through the open gunports.
Later accounts repeat the explanation that the ship heeled over while going about and that the ship was brought down because of the open gunports.
A biography of Peter Carew , brother of George Carew, written by John Hooker sometime after , gives the same reason for the sinking, but adds that insubordination among the crew was to blame. The biography claims that George Carew noted that the Mary Rose showed signs of instability as soon as her sails were raised. George's uncle Gawen Carew had passed by with his own ship the Matthew Gonson during the battle to inquire about the situation of his nephew's ship. In reply he was told "that he had a sorte of knaves whom he could not rule".
The most common explanation for the sinking among modern historians is that the ship was unstable for a number of reasons. When a strong gust of wind hit the sails at a critical moment, the open gunports proved fatal, the ship flooded and quickly foundered.
This has been interpreted to mean that something else could have gone wrong since it is assumed that an experienced crew would not have failed to secure the gunports before making a potentially risky turn.
The most recent surveys of the ship indicate that the ship was modified late in her career and have lent support to the idea that the Mary Rose was altered too much to be properly seaworthy. Marsden has suggested that the weight of additional heavy guns would have increased her draught so much that the waterline was less than one metre c. Peter Carew's claim of insubordination has been given support by James Watt, former Medical Director-General of the Royal Navy, based on records of an epidemic of dysentery in Portsmouth which could have rendered the crew incapable of handling the ship properly, [80] while historian Richard Barker has suggested that the crew actually knew that the ship was an accident waiting to happen, at which they balked and refused to follow orders.
It also reports that there were men on board, an unusually high number. The distance in time to the event it describes may mean that it was embellished to add a dramatic touch. Du Bellay and his two brothers were close to king Francis I and du Bellay had much to gain from portraying the sinking as a French victory. English sources, even if biased, would have nothing to gain from portraying the sinking as the result of crew incompetence rather than conceding a victory to the much-feared gun galleys.
Dominic Fontana, a geographer at the University of Portsmouth, has voiced support for du Bellay's version of the sinking based on the battle as it is depicted in the Cowdray Engraving, and modern GIS analysis of the modern scene of the battle. By plotting the fleets and calculating the conjectured final manoeuvres of the Mary Rose , Fontana reached the conclusion that the ship had been hit low in the hull by the galleys and was destabilised after taking in water.
He has interpreted the final heading of the ship straight due north as a failed attempt to reach the shallows at Spitbank only a few hundred metres away. This theory has been given partial support by Alexzandra Hildred, one of the experts who has worked with the Mary Rose , though she has suggested that the close proximity to Spitbank could also indicate that the sinking occurred while trying to make a hard turn to avoid running aground.
Initial tests showed that the ship was able to make the turn described by eyewitnesses without capsizing. In later tests, a fan was used to create a breeze similar to the one reported to have suddenly sprung up on the day of the sinking as the Mary Rose went to make the turn. As the model made the turn, the breeze in the upper works forced it to heel more than at calm, forcing the main deck gun ports below the waterline and foundering the model within a few seconds. The sequence of events closely followed what eyewitnesses had reported, particularly the suddenness with which the ship sank.
A salvage attempt was ordered by Secretary of State William Paget only days after the sinking, and Charles Brandon , the king's brother-in-law, took charge of Model Ship Building Catalogs Queues practical details. The operation followed the standard procedure for raising ships in shallow waters: strong cables were attached to the sunken ship and fastened to two empty ships, or hulks. At low tide, the ropes were pulled taut with capstans.
When the high tide came in, the hulks rose and with them the wreck. It would then be towed into shallower water and the procedure repeated until the whole ship could be raised completely. A list of necessary equipment was compiled by 1 August and included, among other things, massive cables, capstans, pulleys , and 40 pounds of tallow for lubrication.
The proposed salvage team comprised 30 Venetian mariners and a Venetian carpenter with 60 English sailors to serve them. Brandon was so confident of success that he reassured the king that it would only be a matter of days before they could raise the Mary Rose. The optimism proved unfounded. Since the ship had settled at a degree angle to starboard much of it was stuck deep into the clay of the seabed. This made it virtually impossible to pass cables under the hull and required far more lifting power than if the ship had settled on a hard seabed.
An attempt to secure cables to the main mast appears only to have resulted in its being snapped off. The project was successful only in raising rigging, some guns and other items.
At least two other salvage teams in and received payment for raising more guns from the wreck. When all hope of raising the complete ship was finally abandoned is not known. It could have been after Henry VIII's death in January or even as late as , when the last guns were brought up.
After the sinking, the partially buried wreck created a barrier at a right angle against the currents of the Solent. Two scour pits, large underwater ditches, formed on either side of the wreck while silt and seaweed was deposited inside the ship. A deep but narrow pit formed on the upward tilting port side, while a shallower, broader pit formed on the starboard side, which had been mostly buried by the force of the impact. The abrasive actions of sand and silt carried by the currents and the activity of fungi, bacteria and wood-boring crustaceans and molluscs, such as the teredo "shipworm", began to break down the structure of the ship.
Eventually the exposed wooden structure was weakened and gradually collapsed. The timbers and contents of the port side were either deposited in the scour pits and remaining ship structure or carried off by the currents.
Following the collapse of the exposed parts of the ship, the site was levelled with the seabed and gradually covered by layers of sediment, concealing most of the remaining structure. During the 16th century, a hard layer of compacted clay and crushed shells formed over the ship, stabilising the site and sealing the Tudor-era deposits. Further layers of soft silt covered the site during the 18th and 19th centuries, but frequent changes in the tidal patterns and currents in the Solent occasionally exposed some of the timbers, leading to its accidental rediscovery in and aiding in locating the wreck in In mid, a group of five fishermen caught their nets on timbers protruding from the bottom of the Solent.
They contacted a diver to help them remove the hindrance, and on 10 June , Henry Abbinett became the first person to see the Mary Rose in almost years. Later, two other professional divers, John Deane and William Edwards, were employed.
Using a recently invented rubber suit and metal diving helmet, Deane and Edwards began to examine the wreck and salvage items from it. Initially, this caused a dispute between Deane who had also brought in his brother Charles into the project , Abbinett and the fishermen who had hired them.
The matter was eventually settled by allowing the fishermen a share of the proceeds from the sale of the first salvaged guns, while Deane received exclusive salvage rights at the expense of Abbinett. The wreck was soon identified as the Mary Rose from the inscriptions of one of the bronze guns manufactured in The identification of the ship led to high public interest in the salvage operation and caused a great demand for the objects that were brought up.
Though many of the objects could not be properly conserved at the time and subsequently deteriorated, many were documented with pencil sketches and watercolour drawings, which survive to this day. John Deane ceased working on the wreck in , but returned in with new, more destructive methods.
With the help of condemned bomb shells filled with gunpowder acquired from the Ordnance Board, he blasted his way into parts of the wreck. Fragments of bombs and traces of blasting craters were found during the modern excavations, but there was no evidence that Deane managed to penetrate the hard layer that had sealed off the Tudor levels.
Deane reported retrieving a bilge pump and the lower part of the main mast, both of which would have been located Model Ship Building Table Saw Jp inside the ship. The recovery of small wooden objects like longbows suggests that Deane did manage to penetrate the Tudor levels at some point, though this has been disputed by the excavation project leader Margaret Rule. Newspaper reports on Deane's diving operations in October report that the ship was clinker built, but since the sterncastle is the only part of the ship with this feature, an alternative explanation has been suggested: Deane did not penetrate the hard shelly layer that covered most of the ship, but managed only to get into remains of the sterncastle that today no longer exist.
Despite the rough handling by Deane, the Mary Rose escaped the wholesale destruction by giant rakes and explosives that was the fate of other wrecks in the Solent such as HMS Royal George. The modern search for the Mary Rose was initiated by the Southsea branch of the British Sub-Aqua Club in as part of a project to locate shipwrecks in the Solent.
The project was under the leadership of historian, journalist and amateur diver Alexander McKee. Initially the two teams had differing views on where to find the wreck, but eventually joined forces. In February a chart from was found that marked the positions of the Mary Rose and several other wrecks.
The charted position coincided with a trench one of the scour pits that had already been located by McKee's team, and a definite location was finally established at a position 3 km 1. In a loose timber was located and on 5 May , the first structural details of the buried hull were identified after they were partially uncovered by winter storms.
A major problem for the team from the start was that wreck sites in the UK lacked any legal protection from plunderers and treasure hunters. Sunken ships, once being moving objects, were legally treated as chattel and were awarded to those who could first raise them.
The Merchant Shipping Act of also stipulated that any objects raised from a wreck should be auctioned off to finance the salvage operations, and there was nothing preventing anyone from "stealing" the wreck and making a profit. The problem was handled by forming an organisation, the Mary Rose Committee, aiming "to find, excavate, raise and preserve for all time such remains of the ship Mary Rose as may be of historical or archaeological interest".
To keep intruders at bay, the Committee arranged a lease of the seabed where the wreck lay from the Portsmouth authorities, thereby discouraging anyone from trespassing on the underwater property. In hindsight this was only a legalistic charade which had little chance of holding up in a court of law.
In combination with secrecy as to the exact location of the wreck, it saved the project from interference. It was not until the passing of the Protection of Wrecks Act on 5 February that the Mary Rose was declared to be of national historic interest that enjoyed full legal protection from any disturbance by commercial salvage teams.
Despite this, years after the passing of the act and the excavation of the ship, lingering conflicts with salvage legislation remained a threat to the Mary Rose project as "personal" finds such as chests, clothing and cooking utensils risked being confiscated and auctioned off. Following the discovery of the wreck in , the project became known to the general public and received increasing media attention.
This helped bring in more donations and equipment, primarily from private sources. In the project received royal patronage from Prince Charles , who participated in dives on the site. This attracted yet more publicity, and also more funding and assistance. The committee had become a registered charity in , which made it easier to raise funds, and the application for excavation and raising of the ship had been officially approved by the UK government.
By the initial excavation work had uncovered a complete and coherent site with an intact ship structure and the orientation of the hull had been positively identified as being on an almost straight northerly heading with a degree heel to starboard and a slight downward tilt towards the bow.
As no records of English shipbuilding techniques used in vessels like the Mary Rose survive, excavation of the ship would allow for a detailed survey of her design and shed new light on the construction of ships of the era. It was also considered desirable to recover and preserve the remains of the hull if possible.
For the first time, the project was faced with the practical difficulties of actually raising, conserving and preparing the hull for public display. To handle this new, considerably more complex and expensive task, it was decided that a new organisation was needed. The Mary Rose Trust , a limited charitable trust , [] with representatives from many organisations would handle the need for a larger operation and a large infusion of funds. In a new diving vessel was purchased to replace the previous 12 m 40 ft catamaran Roger Greenville which had been used from The choice fell on the salvage vessel Sleipner , the same craft that had been used as a platform for diving operations on the Vasa.
The project went from a team of only twelve volunteers working four months a year to over 50 individuals working almost around the clock nine months a year. In addition there were over volunteer divers and a laboratory staff of about 70 that ran the shore base and conservation facilities.
Raising the Mary Rose meant overcoming delicate problems that had never been encountered before. The raising of the Swedish warship Vasa �61 was the only comparable precedent, but it had been a relatively straightforward operation since the hull was completely intact and rested upright on the seabed.
It had been raised with basically the same methods as were in use in Tudor England: cables were slung under the hull and attached to two pontoons on either side of the ship which was then gradually raised and towed into shallower waters. Only one third of the Mary Rose was intact and she lay deeply embedded in mud.
If the hull were raised in the conventional way, there was no guarantee that it would have enough structural strength to hold together out of water. Many suggestions for raising the ship were discarded, including the construction of a cofferdam around the wreck site, filling the ship with small buoyant objects such as ping-pong balls or even pumping brine into the seabed and freezing it so that it would float and take the hull with it.
After lengthy discussions it was decided in February that the hull would first be emptied of all its contents and strengthened with steel braces and frames.
It would then be lifted to the surface with floating sheerlegs attached to nylon strops passing under the hull and transferred to a cradle. It was also decided that the ship would be recovered before the end of the diving season in If the wreck stayed uncovered any longer it risked irreversible damage from biological decay and tidal scouring.
During the last year of the operation, the massive scope of full excavation and raising was beginning to take its toll on those closely involved in the project. In May , Alexander McKee voiced concerns about the method chosen for raising the timbers and openly questioned Margaret Rule 's position as excavation leader. McKee felt ignored in what he viewed as a project where he had always played a central role, both as the initiator of the search for the Mary Rose and other ships in the Solent, and as an active member throughout the diving operations.
He had several supporters who all pointed to the risk of the project's turning into an embarrassing failure if the ship were damaged during raising operations. To address these concerns it was suggested that the hull should be placed on top of a supporting steel cradle underwater. This would avoid the inherent risks of damaging the wooden structure if it were lifted out of the water without appropriate support.
The idea of using nylon strops was also discarded in favour of drilling holes through the hull at points and passing iron bolts through them to allow the attachment of wires connected to a lifting frame. In the spring of , after three intense seasons of archaeological underwater work, preparations began for raising the ship.
The operation soon ran into problems: early on there were difficulties with the custom-made lifting equipment; divers on the project belonging to the Royal Engineers had to be pulled because of the outbreak of the Falklands War ; and the method of lifting the hull had to be considerably altered as late as June. After the frame was properly attached to the hull, it was slowly jacked up on four legs to pull the ship off the seabed.
The massive crane of the barge Tog Mor then moved the frame and hull, transferring them underwater to the specially designed cradle, which was padded with water-filled bags. On the morning of 11 October , the final lift of the entire package of cradle, hull and lifting frame began.
It was watched by the team, Prince Charles and other spectators in boats around the site. At am, the first timbers of the Mary Rose broke the surface. A second set of bags under the hull was inflated with air, to cushion the waterlogged wood. Finally, the whole package was placed on a barge and taken to the shore. Though eventually successful, the operation was close to foundering on two occasions; first when one of the supporting legs of the lifting frame was bent and had to be removed and later when a corner of the frame, with "an unforgettable crunch", [] slipped more than a metre 3 feet and came close to crushing part of the hull.
As one of the most ambitious and expensive projects in the history of maritime archaeology , the Mary Rose project broke new ground within this field in the UK. It was the first time that a British privately funded project was able to apply modern scientific standards fully and without having to auction off part of the findings to finance its activities; where previous projects often had to settle for just a partial recovery of finds, everything found in connection with the Mary Rose was recovered and recorded.
The raising of the vessel made it possible to establish the first historic shipwreck museum in the UK to receive government accreditation and funding. The excavation of the Mary Rose wreck site proved that it was possible to achieve a level of exactness in underwater excavations comparable to those on dry land. Throughout the s, the Mary Rose was meticulously surveyed, excavated and recorded with the latest methods within the field of maritime archaeology.
Working in an underwater environment meant that principles of land-based archaeology did not always apply. Mechanical excavators, airlifts and suction dredges were used in the process of locating the wreck, but as soon as it began to be uncovered in earnest, more delicate techniques were employed.
Artefacts of all sizes were supported with soft packing material, such as old plastic ice cream containers, and some of the arrows that were "soft like cream cheese" had to be brought up in special styrofoam containers. The many layers of sediment that had accumulated on the site could be used to date artefacts in which they were found, and had to be recorded properly. The various types of accretions and remnants of chemicals with artefacts were essential clues to objects that had long since broken down and disappeared, and needed to be treated with considerable care.
The excavation and raising of the ship in the s and early s meant that diving operations ceased, even though modern scaffolding and part of the bow were left on the seabed. The pressure on conservators to treat tens of thousands of artefacts and the high costs of conserving, storing and displaying the finds and the ship meant that there were no funds available for diving.
In , the UK Ministry of Defence announced plans to build two new aircraft carriers. Because of the great size of the new vessels, the outlet from Portsmouth needed to be surveyed to make sure that they could sail no matter the tide. The planned route for the underwater channel ran close to the Mary Rose wrecksite, which meant that funding was supplied to survey and excavate the site once more.
Even though the planned carriers were downsized enough to not require alteration of Portsmouth outlet, the excavations had already exposed timbers and were completed in Among the most important finds was the ten-metre 32 feet stem , the forward continuation of the keel, which provided more exact details about the original profile of the ship. Over 26, artefacts and pieces of timber were raised along with remains of about half the crew members.
Analysis of the crew skeletons shows many had suffered malnutrition , and had evidence of rickets , scurvy , and other deficiency diseases. Crew members also developed arthritis through the stresses on their joints from heavy lifting and maritime life generally, and suffered bone fractures. The casks used for storage on the Mary Rose have been compared with those from a wreck of a trade vessel from the s and have revealed that they were of better quality, more robust and reliable, an indication that supplies for the Tudor navy were given high priority, and their requirements set a high standard for cask manufacturing at the time.
As a miniature society at sea, the wreck of the Mary Rose held personal objects belonging to individual crew members. This included clothing, games, various items for spiritual or recreational use, and objects related to mundane everyday tasks such as personal hygiene, fishing, and sewing. The ship carried several skilled craftsmen and was equipped for handling both routine maintenance and repairing extensive battle damage. In and around one of the cabins on the main deck under the sterncastle, archaeologists found a "collection of woodworking tools Along with loose mallets and tar pots used for caulking, this variety of tools belonged to one or several of the carpenters employed on the Mary Rose.
Many of the cannons and other weapons from the Mary Rose have provided invaluable physical evidence about 16th-century weapon technology. The surviving gunshields are almost all from the Mary Rose , and the four small cast iron hailshot pieces are the only known examples of this type of weapon.
Animal remains have been found in the wreck of the Mary Rose. These include the skeletons of a rat, a frog and a dog. Two fiddles , a bow, a still shawm or doucaine , three three-hole pipes , and a tabor drum with a drumstick were found throughout the wreck. These would have been used for the personal enjoyment of the crew and to provide a rhythm to work on the rigging and turning the capstans on the upper decks.
The tabor drum is the earliest known example of its kind and the drumstick of a previously unknown design. The tabor pipes are considerably longer than any known examples from the period. Their discovery proved that contemporary illustrations, previously viewed with some suspicion, were accurate depictions of the instruments. Before the discovery of the Mary Rose shawm, an early predecessor to the oboe , instrument historians had been puzzled by reference to "still shawms", or "soft" shawms, that were said to have a sound that was less shrill than earlier shawms.
A reproduction has been made and played. Combined with a pipe and tabor, it provides a "very effective bass part" that would have produced "rich and full sound, which would have provided excellent music for dancing on board ship".
Reproductions of both fiddles have been made, though less is known of their design than the shawm since the neck and strings were missing. In the remains of a small cabin in the bow of the ship and in a few other locations around the wreck was found the earliest dated set of navigation instruments in Europe found so far: compasses, divider calipers , a stick used for charting, protractors , sounding leads , tide calculators and a logreel , an instrument for calculating speed.
Several of these objects are not only unique in having such an early, definite dating, but also because they pre-date written records of their use; protractors would have reasonably been used to measure bearings and courses on maps, but sea charts are not known to have been used by English navigators during the first half of the 16th century, compasses were not depicted on English ships until the s, and the first mention of a logreel is from The cabin located on the main deck underneath the sterncastle is thought to have belonged to the barber-surgeon.
He was a trained professional who saw to the health and welfare of the crew and acted as the medical expert on board.
The most important of these finds were found in an intact wooden chest which contained over 60 objects relating to the barber-surgeon's medical practice: the wooden handles of a complete set of surgical tools and several shaving razors although none of the steel blades had survived , a copper syringe for wound irrigation and treatment of gonorrhoea , and even a skilfully crafted feeding bottle for feeding incapacitated patients.
More objects were found around the cabin, such as earscoops, shaving bowls and combs. With this wide selection of tools and medicaments the barber-surgeon, along with one or more assistants, could set bone fractures, perform amputations and deal with other acute injuries, treat a number of diseases and provide crew members with a minimal standard of personal hygiene. One of the first scientifically confirmed ratters was "Hatch" a terrier and whippet dog crossbreed who spent his short life on the Mary Rose.
Preservation of the Mary Rose and her contents was an essential part of the project from the start. Though many artefacts, especially those that were buried in silt, had been preserved, the long exposure to an underwater environment had rendered most of them sensitive to exposure to air after recovery. Archaeologists and conservators had to work in tandem from the start to prevent deterioration of the artefacts. Passive storage depended on the type of material that the object was made of, and could vary considerably.
Smaller objects from the most common material, wood, were sealed in polyethylene bags to preserve moisture. Timbers and other objects that were too large to be wrapped were stored in unsealed water tanks. Growth of fungi and microbes that could degrade wood were controlled by various techniques, including low-temperature storage, chemicals, and in the case of large objects, common pond snails that consumed wood-degrading organisms but not the wood itself.
Other organic materials such as leather, skin and textiles were treated similarly, by keeping them moist in tanks or sealed plastic containers. Bone and ivory was desalinated to prevent damage from salt crystallisation, as were glass, ceramic and stone. Iron, copper and copper alloy objects were kept moist in a sodium sesquicarbonate solution to prevent oxidisation and reaction with the chlorides that had penetrated the surface.
Alloys of lead and pewter are inherently stable in the atmosphere and generally require no special treatment. Silver and gold were the only materials that required no special passive storage. Conserving the hull of the Mary Rose was the most complicated and expensive task for the project.
The substance polyethylene glycol PEG had been used before on archaeological wood, and was during the s being used to conserve the Vasa. After almost ten years of small-scale trials on timbers, an active three-phase conservation programme of the hull of the Mary Rose began in During the first phase, which lasted from to , the wood was sprayed with low-molecular-weight PEG to replace the water in the cellular structure of the wood.
From to , a higher-molecular-weight PEG was used to strengthen the mechanical properties of the outer surface layers. The third phase consisted of a controlled air drying ending in The wreck site is legally protected.
Under the "Protection of Wrecks Act " c. The site is listed as being of "historical, archaeological or artistic importance" by English Heritage. After the decision to raise the Mary Rose, discussions ensued as to where she would eventually go on permanent display. The east end of Portsea Island at Eastney emerged as an early alternative, but was rejected because of parking problems and the distance from the dockyard where she was originally built.
A group called the Maritime Preservation Society even suggested Southsea Castle , where Henry VIII had witnessed the sinking, as a final resting place and there was widespread scepticism to the dockyard location. At one point a county councillor even threatened to withdraw promised funds if the dockyard site became more than an interim solution.
As costs for the project mounted, there was a debate in the Council chamber and in the local paper The News as to whether the money could be spent more appropriately. Although author David Childs writes that in the early s "the debate was as a fiery one", the project was never seriously threatened because of the great symbolic importance of the Mary Rose to the naval history of both Portsmouth and England.
Since the mids, the hull of the Mary Rose has been kept in a covered dry dock while undergoing conservation. Although the hull has been open to the public for viewing, the need for keeping the ship saturated first with water and later a polyethylene glycol PEG solution meant that, before , visitors were separated from the hull by a glass barrier.
By , the specially built ship hall had been visited by over seven million visitors since it first opened on 4 October , just under a year after it was successfully raised. A separate Mary Rose Museum was housed in a structure called No. The construction has been challenging because the museum has been built over the ship in the dry dock which is a listed monument.
During construction of the museum, conservation of the hull continued inside a sealed "hotbox". In April the polyethylene glycol sprays were turned off and the process of controlled airdrying began. In the "hotbox" was removed and for the first time since , the ship was revealed dry. This new museum displays most of the artefacts recovered from within the ship in context with the conserved hull.
As of , the new museum has been visited by over 1. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Carrack-type warship of the English Tudor navy. For the play by J. Barrie, see Mary Rose play. For the American scientist and educator, see Mary Swartz Rose. The remnants of the Mary Rose undergoing conservation in Portsmouth. Main article: War of the League of Cambrai.
Main article: Italian War of � Main article: Battle of the Solent. Main article: Mary Rose Museum. For more discussion supporting the suddenness and violent nature of the sinking, see also Julie Gardiner, "The 'Good Shippe' Mary Rose : an Introduction" in Gardiner , pp. Southsea Castle. Portsmouth City Council. For a detailed account of Dominic Fontana's theory on the sinking see "The Cowdray engravings and the loss of the Mary Rose". For a detailed account of the Deanes see John Bevan, The Infernal Diver: the lives of John and Charles Deane, their invention of the diving helmet, and its first application to salvage, treasure hunting, civil engineering and military uses.
Submex, London. ISBN Current Archeology. Current Publishing. Retrieved 11 March British Broadcasting Corporation.
The Mary Rose. Archived from the original on 8 March Smith 24 August Ars Technica. Retrieved 25 August National Heritage List for England. Mary Rose Trust. Retrieved 21 July January Archived from the original on 3 November Retrieved 9 November Ships and vessels on the National Register of Historic Vessels. Surviving ships launched before Snyder Jr. Commons WikiProject. Underwater diving. Diving modes Atmospheric pressure diving Freediving Saturation diving Scuba diving Snorkeling Surface oriented diving Surface-supplied diving Unmanned diving.
Diving equipment. Cleaning and disinfection of personal diving equipment Human factors in diving equipment design. Diving mask Snorkel Swimfin. Atmospheric diving suit Diving cylinder Burst disc Scuba cylinder valve Diving helmet Reclaim helmet Diving regulator Mechanism of diving regulators Regulator malfunction Regulator freeze Single-hose regulator Twin-hose regulator Full face diving mask.
Diving support equipment. Air filtration Activated carbon Hopcalite Molecular sieve Silica gel Booster pump Carbon dioxide scrubber Cascade filling system Diver's pump Diving air compressor Diving air filter Water separator High pressure breathing air compressor Low pressure breathing air compressor Gas blending Gas blending for scuba diving Gas panel Gas reclaim system Gas storage bank Gas storage quad Gas storage tube Helium analyzer Nitrox production Membrane gas separation Pressure swing adsorption Oxygen analyser Oxygen compatibility.
Diving spread Air spread Saturation spread Hot water system Sonar Underwater acoustic positioning system Underwater acoustic communication. Professional diving. Navy diver U.
Commercial offshore diving Dive leader Diver training Recreational diver training Hyperbaric welding Media diving Nondestructive testing Pearl hunting Police diving Potable water diving Public safety diving Scientific diving Ships husbandry Sponge diving Submarine pipeline Underwater archaeology Archaeology of shipwrecks Underwater construction Offshore construction Underwater demolition Underwater photography Underwater search and recovery Underwater videography.
Abrasive waterjet Airlift Baited remote underwater video In-water surface cleaning Brush cart Cavitation cleaning Pressure washing Pigging Lifting bag Remotely operated underwater vehicle Thermal lance Tremie Water jetting. Limpet mine Speargun Hawaiian sling Polespear.
Recreational diving. Dive center Environmental impact of recreational diving Scuba diving tourism Shark tourism Sinking ships for wreck diving sites. Diversnight Underwater Bike Race.
By Joey Capparella. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below. Apr 5, By Sebastian Blanco. By Connor Hoffman. A Subaru patent application depicts a flying motorcycle that can function like an airplane or helicopter, with VTOL vertical take-off a�. By Tyler Duffy. The second generation of Toyota's rear-wheel-drive coupe has arrived with the same 2.
Apr 4, No, you're not seeing things. The Viper did go out of production four years ago. By Brian Silvestro. Apr 3, By Jens Meiners. Apr 2, It turns out, you can learn a few things about a car from miles away. By Ezra Dyer. Our trip through the week's stories including several EV concepts, the President's infrastructure plan, and rebounding new vehicle sale�.
By Annie White. By Austin Irwin.
|
Mini Tunnel Hull Boat Plans 32 Fishing Tackle Shops Cape Town Model |
26.12.2020 at 12:34:35 Effects after most years yet.
26.12.2020 at 21:28:44 The bow area of the the hunting season, Orth simply.
26.12.2020 at 22:34:41 That you glue both the.