Bwhhahahahahhahaa.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

Repeatability is always an issue when measuring things,

The navigator© wrote:
yes that's why.


In other words, no particaluar reason. You just feel like picking nits and that's the
only one you can think of.

You idiot. Obviously you don't make a living in precision measuremnts.

Really? Is it you that's been following me around all my life? Maybe you can
really tell me how many big boats I've sailed, I never did keep a written tally
myself.



Of course not.


Then why this fixation you seem to have about my sailing experience and knowledge?

So your imagination is reality?

Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat?


Sure is. All you need is a yardstick slightly longer than the boat.

Yardstick. Riiiiight.


And a dial indicater, which I mentioned earlier. Some duct tape would be nice, although
that might bring up hysteresis issues (what with 'repeatability' being one of your
personal bugaboos and all).


Duct tape for a precision 5 thou measurememt. Oh I can see it now! The
National standards institute call up Doug and say, we are having trouble
measuring a 40' boat to better than a thou and Doug says: You need duct
tape. Bwhahhahahahaha. You are a great engineer!



Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use


Now you're claiming you were there? How do you know what they used?



Want to put money on it? Let's email them.


Alas, they are out of business. In any event, if you were there, then you can tell us
the methodology (and why IYHO it's all wrong). If you weren't then you know less about
it than me yet want to dispute the issue. Does that sound intelligent?


But you don't know anything as you've not posted a single fact. Not even
heresay really. I say again, all 40' racing boats deflect more than 5
thou with a 10,000 kg backstay tension. To even think your imagined
measurement migh be true is completely ludicrous. Go talk to a racing
boat designer.

Not really, if you know how.



The usual pompous DSK response that hints at knowlege where there is none.


I know how, you don't. You claim it's difficult and/or impossible, based on... umm,
your vast knowledge? This gets funnier and funnier.

I said it was hard. You said it was easy remember?



Now, lets go back to your original statement which I said was BS. Let me
remind lest you think you've moved goal posts and escaped. You said:
"At one point FROM the late 1970s THROUGH MAYBE the late 1980s it was
fairly common to have a GEODESIC GRID of aluminium struts inside,
COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTING THE CABIN."

The caps are to highlight the BS. Completely obstructing the cabin?

Bwhahhahaha. BULL**** EXPOSED.


I'm glad you stay up late at night worrying about this sort of nit picking. I'm sure it
keeps you out of worse trouble.

Meanwhile, what I said about the boats is true. None of it is BS, the 'trusses' (happy
again?) were a total PITA. The boats were bruisers above decks and below.



"None of it is BS"? Still in denial Doggie?

Do you still think it's all BS? Will you never learn?

But I think you've confirmed I seem to know more about boat design and
construction than you.


Yes, that's why you know so much about class rating rules, structural rigidity &
characteristics contributing to it, as well as the history of specific types of
structures in boats.

I never said that, I just said you were BSing as usual -and you still
are. So now you know about yacht structural design? Did you do a course
in Naval Architecture in your imagination too? Didn't they talk about
hull deflection under rigging loads? Bwhahhahahahahaha.