The navigator© wrote:

I was referring to the 'only place' comment by DSK.

That wasn't me. You seem to have a problem keeping up.

DSK

Usually? Good lord.

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:
Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.

Bwhahhahahahahaha. No wonder you've forgotten all your 'engineering'.

Cheers MC



DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


I was referring to the 'only place' comment by DSK.


That wasn't me. You seem to have a problem keeping up.

DSK

Well?

Cheers MC

The_navigator© wrote:

But the boat is not solid steel is it?

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Actually quite a few sailboats *are* much more rigid than you seem to
know. You're taking your experience on plastic boats and assuming it is
generally applicable. The flex in a steel or ferrocement hull is
certainly there (everything flexes to some degree), but it's a fraction
of what is common in lightweight toy racing boats which are built to
minimal standards of seaworthiness and do, indeed, flex. In fact, the
toy boats often break when coming off a fairly moderate wave, as recent
Sydney-Hobart races have shown so well.

The remark about water being much less compressible than the boat is
pure & utter bull****. Even frozen water is a lot more compressible
than steel. Also has lower shear strength, tensile strength etc.

As to measurement of a boat to 0.005", I can easily believe that this
is possible. It's not even all that difficult. Whether there's any
point and whether the measurement is repeatable are different issues.

Peter Wiley

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


That boats are built differently has nothing to do with it. Sail
boats are not rigid nor even near it. To be as rigid as you suggest
would probably mean they would not float. If you had ever been in a
real boat beating to windward your would know they are *not* rigid.
Put your hand on the forstay and look at it unloading when she buries
her bow and look at it going tight on the crest (that's revealed by
the luff bending). It's loading up/unloading because the boat is
flexing. If you ever get the chance (assuming that any boat owner
could put up with your big mouth and BS) have a good hard look at the
hull of a boat pounding hard to windward and look and feel hull
panels flexing. The boat needs has to flex to reduce impact loadings
because water is much less compressable than the boat. Once again you
reveal your lack of experience with big boats by suggesting
otherwise. This typifies your inability to grasp even simple ideas.

As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then
tell me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature
cycle. Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou
deflection over a 40' boat? Even if the boat builder had access to
interferometric equipment (which I'm sure they did not use -as there
would be no point in such an accurate measurement) it would still be
hard. If you think it's so easy how come you need a 'crew'. Lets face
it this is yet more Doug Kig (I'm a ****ing hero) BS. Have'nt you
ever wonder why you don't make more money -after all, you are such an
expert...

My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has
more than 1 ton rig tension.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:



I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid



Oh yeah, and all boats are built to the same structural standard,
aren't
they.



and it's hard to
measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects.



Now that is total BS. It costs, but if you're willing to pay, I'll
bring a
crew and and gear, and show you how to measure movement in any axis on
objects of any size & orientation down to 5 ten thousands +/- 1

It's part of what I do for a living, thanks very much. The NIST has
occasionally asked me for advice on this type of thing.




.... Even Ella has a backstay
tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.



Gee, and there's no difference between "2500#" and 15,000# is there?

Why do I bother answering your posts?

DSK

Which one?

Cheers MC

Capetanios Oz wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:59:23 +1300, The_navigator©
wrote:


Usually? Good lord.

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.



Building 22' aluminium masts with carbon fibre tapered tops, we used
Sikaflex to bond the tip to the ally. There were no mechanical
fixings.
Hounds are in the carbon so compression loads are tranferred thru the
bond.
No failures to date.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

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.


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?


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).





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?



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.





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.




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.

Thank you so much for making this all clear, Navvie©

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

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.

Sikaflex.

Cheers MC

Capetanios Oz wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:15:23 +1300, The_navigator©
wrote:


Which one?

Cheers MC


Which one what?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

That's a more!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:

You mean, you want a heroic ode, based on the poor elephant seal,
cumbersome and easily attacked by vicious sealers on land, speedy
and graceful on/in the water, but nevertheless doomed by its
liberal outlook and engineering limitations?

FT

The navigator© wrote:

More!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Well, it's in harmony with its subject matter, what did you
expect?

The navigator© wrote:


What a pathetic post.

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:



Peter Wiley wrote:



snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.



Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?

You mean, you want a heroic ode, based on the poor elephant seal,
cumbersome and easily attacked by vicious sealers on land, speedy
and graceful on/in the water, but nevertheless doomed by its
liberal outlook and engineering limitations?

FT

The navigator© wrote:

More!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:

Well, it's in harmony with its subject matter, what did you
expect?

The navigator© wrote:

What a pathetic post.

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Peter Wiley wrote:


snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.



Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?




--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com