JAXAshby wrote:

dougie, engineering genius that youare what with all the reading of college
physics and engineering textbooks you read, should know that the end of planks
are under some considerable stress and strain as the hull works in the seas.

So tell me Jax, how come it is that almost all ships were double ended below the
waterline? I mean from Hanseatic cogs up through the clipper ships, coasting
schooners, etc etc?

Yes, planks come under strain at sea. So you are now claiming that nobody ever
built ocean going ships until carbon fiber & epoxy (or at the very least,
carbon-nickel steel & arc welding) were invented?

DSK

professor dougies -- who doesn't know the plural of vortex -- is lecturing the
world on how they form.

ain't dat nice.

you don't know what causes tip vortex

JAXAshby wrote:
oh, but I do indeed know, dougies. you just couldn't understand the six
and
seven letter words I used to explain it.

Actually, your explanation (what there was of it) was commendably concise.
And
you didn't throw in a lot of words like "sine function" at random.

But it was also incomplete, since you left out the two biggest reasons why
tip
vortexes form in the first place. If you look back to see my answer to your
explanatory post, you'll see at least part of what you left out.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

JAXAshby wrote:

professor dougies -- who doesn't know the plural of vortex

Well, let's see... nine out of ten math references use 'vortexes' as the plural of
'vortex.' But Jax is smarter than they are.

-- is lecturing the
world on how they form.

I asked a question, so far have not lectured about anything. But you cannot answer
the question, and somehow you think that makes you look smart. But then, Jax is so
much smarter that he doesn't need to answer questions correctly nor explain
complicated things.



ain't dat nice.

Nothing has changed has it Jax.

DSK

bye-bye, idgit.

Crap Jaxxie... you've been hooked landed, fillet and fried by Doug on this!

Heh Jaxxies... how's the old BP holding up? Has your lithium assisted in
turning those hills and valleys of emotional upheaval into a gently rolling
golf course of bland confusion yet?

CM



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
| bye-bye, idgit.

OzOn wrote:

Bwaaahahahahhahahahhahahha!

GLUES!!!!????

I'm glad somebody else around here appreciates Jax's sense of humor.

Last week, in a discussion on another newsgroup, he said "Hull speed doesn't have an
asymptote, unless it gets up to within the order of magnitude of infinity." Cost a
fortune in spilled coffee, that one did.

DSK

OzOn wrote:

On 28 Jan 2004 13:22:05 GMT, (JAXAshby) scribbled
thusly:


not well. It was well into the 20th century before glues became good enough to
be trusted for plank ends under the waterline. At least in the kinds of boats
discussed here.


Bwaaahahahahhahahahhahahha!

GLUES!!!!????

Tell me Jocks, what glues were used in lets say umm
The Mayflower?

What colour you painting that floor this time?



He had a good point but his argument became unglued.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

You ran away from explaining the capsize ratio,


MC wrote:
On the contrary I explained it in terms a mathematical layperson like
you should have been able to understand. Why do you live the big lie,
afraid of the truth? Now do you really want me to repost it so you
won't understand it again?


Yes please do.


Use google you lazy sod.

Also, be prepared to explain why _your_ explanation disagrees with the
explanation of the professional naval architects who devised this measure.



Oh but it does. It is closely related to the definition of the
metacentric radius. Do you know what that is?

Cheers

DSK wrote:

you don't know what causes tip vortex

JAXAshby wrote:
oh, but I do indeed know, dougies. you just couldn't understand the six and
seven letter words I used to explain it.


Actually, your explanation (what there was of it) was commendably concise. And
you didn't throw in a lot of words like "sine function" at random.

But it was also incomplete, since you left out the two biggest reasons why tip
vortexes form in the first place. If you look back to see my answer to your
explanatory post, you'll see at least part of what you left out.



Well if you know the answer then post it. I'll be impressed if you can
correctly state the boundary conditions for vortex shedding.

Cheers

Also, be prepared to explain why _your_ explanation disagrees with the
explanation of the professional naval architects who devised this measure.

MC wrote:
Oh but it does. It is closely related to the definition of the
metacentric radius. Do you know what that is?

No but I know several different ways of calculating, and few methods of
approximating with less rigorous measurements, metacentric height. If you
calculate metacentric height for a series of all angles through 180, you would
get a sort of radius. And it is a very very different thing from the capsize
screen. Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing...

CSR==(Beam / Disp ) ^ 0.333

with a lower result being more desirable when comparing similar vessels. Ring
any bells?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King