BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:43:05 +1300, MC wrote:



DSK wrote:

JAXAshby wrote:

dougie, a "benefit" is something that adds to the overall effect. In
this case
there is no benefit because there is no problem with transoms not
being strong
enough on the size and type sailboats under discussion. Calling it a
benefit
doesn't make it one.


Let's see... an inherently stronger structure is not better than an
inherently weaker one? What sort of engineering is this? Oh wait, it's
JAXINEERING!



A reverse transom is still lighter and faster than a canoe and is
designed to be strong enough. Your argument is ridiculous.

Cheers

"The canoe stern, besides being a thing of beauty, is according to
Crealock, "a potential bow; for when the weather is truly bad, it is
the stern which will bear most of its venom."

The canoe stern is hardly unique to Valiant. The above quote from
Crealock was written relative to the PSC 37, also, coincidentally, in
the Sailboat Hall of Fame. Having a canoe stern doesn't seem to be
disqualifiying boats from the Hall of Fame:)

http://www.dreamcatcheryachts.com/pacific_seacraft/37/


As to Valiant, I think the history of the boat speaks for itself:

http://www.sailnet.com/valiant/valaccom.htm

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

MC wrote:


A reverse transom is still lighter

Sorry, not true. A canoe stern, or almost any double-ender type stern, is
better triangulated than any transom. After your long diatribe about
trusses, I don't see how you can avoid agreeing... unless of course, you're
just plain full of crap.


and faster than a canoe and is
designed to be strong enough. Your argument is ridiculous.

Hey, I'm not the one agreeing with Jax ;)

DSK

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

DSK wrote:

MC wrote:


A reverse transom is still lighter


Sorry, not true. A canoe stern, or almost any double-ender type stern, is
better triangulated than any transom. After your long diatribe about
trusses, I don't see how you can avoid agreeing... unless of course, you're
just plain full of crap.

No think of this: A flat reverse transom is lighter because no material
is added beyond that associated with the aft section. Think of the
amount of curved material in a cnaoe stern that does not contribute to
hull performance! The nearly flat transom has to resist mostly
compression of the hull section but as you can see from sugar scoops and
cut aways that is not that large. Put another way, closing the transom
mostly stops waves boarding. Thus the baot structure does not need the
weight of the structure of the canoe to be strong as strength is less of
an issue. Do you get it now -as for strength, have you seen a transom
crushed by waves -or does one design boats for ramming exercises?



and faster than a canoe and is
designed to be strong enough. Your argument is ridiculous.


Hey, I'm not the one agreeing with Jax ;)


But he he knew the answer to your question.

Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

felton wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:43:05 +1300, MC wrote:



DSK wrote:


JAXAshby wrote:


dougie, a "benefit" is something that adds to the overall effect. In
this case
there is no benefit because there is no problem with transoms not
being strong
enough on the size and type sailboats under discussion. Calling it a
benefit
doesn't make it one.


Let's see... an inherently stronger structure is not better than an
inherently weaker one? What sort of engineering is this? Oh wait, it's
JAXINEERING!



A reverse transom is still lighter and faster than a canoe and is
designed to be strong enough. Your argument is ridiculous.

Cheers


"The canoe stern, besides being a thing of beauty, is according to
Crealock, "a potential bow; for when the weather is truly bad, it is
the stern which will bear most of its venom."


never seen a trasom crushed by a wave. I fully agree that if you cannot
keep sailing that a canoe offers some advanates for sea keeping with
drogues etc. but the strength is not the issue.

The canoe stern is hardly unique to Valiant.

It also follows very old design ideas.


The above quote from
Crealock was written relative to the PSC 37, also, coincidentally, in
the Sailboat Hall of Fame. Having a canoe stern doesn't seem to be
disqualifiying boats from the Hall of Fame:)


But none of them win races anymore -not even in the southern ocean
running before waves....


Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:52:40 +1300, MC wrote:



felton wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:43:05 +1300, MC wrote:



DSK wrote:


JAXAshby wrote:


dougie, a "benefit" is something that adds to the overall effect. In
this case
there is no benefit because there is no problem with transoms not
being strong
enough on the size and type sailboats under discussion. Calling it a
benefit
doesn't make it one.


Let's see... an inherently stronger structure is not better than an
inherently weaker one? What sort of engineering is this? Oh wait, it's
JAXINEERING!



A reverse transom is still lighter and faster than a canoe and is
designed to be strong enough. Your argument is ridiculous.

Cheers


"The canoe stern, besides being a thing of beauty, is according to
Crealock, "a potential bow; for when the weather is truly bad, it is
the stern which will bear most of its venom."


never seen a trasom crushed by a wave. I fully agree that if you cannot
keep sailing that a canoe offers some advanates for sea keeping with
drogues etc. but the strength is not the issue.

The canoe stern is hardly unique to Valiant.

It also follows very old design ideas.


The above quote from
Crealock was written relative to the PSC 37, also, coincidentally, in
the Sailboat Hall of Fame. Having a canoe stern doesn't seem to be
disqualifiying boats from the Hall of Fame:)


But none of them win races anymore -not even in the southern ocean
running before waves....


Cheers

But we weren't talking about optimal racing designs. We were
originally talking about seaworthy designs for challenging conditions,
at least I think we were.

From the Hall of Fame induction...


"The outsized appeal of the Valiant 40 once earned it the label of
"cult boat" in some circles, but that did a disservice to the fact
that much of the boat's popularity derives from its remarkable
achievements under sail. It has been the boat of choice for a number
of circumnavigators and has recorded finishes at the top of fleets in
some of the world's most challenging races, including the Singlehanded
Transatlantic and the BOC Challenge. In the Valiant 40 Resourceful in
l983, Mark Schrader set the record for the fastest circumnavigation,
becoming the first American to sail around the world via the five
capes.

Of all the bragging rights that go with Valiant 40 ownership, one of
the most impressive, according to Worstell, is that no Valiant 40 has
suffered a disabling failure. "Failure" is certainly not a word to use
in connection with this boat, whose success began with innovation and
continues with enduring excellence."

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

But none of them win races anymore -not even in the southern ocean
running before waves....



felton wrote:
But we weren't talking about optimal racing designs. We were
originally talking about seaworthy designs for challenging conditions,
at least I think we were.

And structural strength. That was the specific point I raised which MC
seems to have not grasped.

From the Hall of Fame induction...
.....
Of all the bragging rights that go with Valiant 40 ownership, one of
the most impressive, according to Worstell, is that no Valiant 40 has
suffered a disabling failure. "Failure" is certainly not a word to use
in connection with this boat, whose success began with innovation and
continues with enduring excellence."




MC wrote:
No think of this: A flat reverse transom is lighter because no material
is added beyond that associated with the aft section. Think of the
amount of curved material in a cnaoe stern that does not contribute to
hull performance!


And this has *what* to do with structural strength?

The issue at hand- all else being equal (which you can take to mean
framing, lay-up, and/or weight per square measure of hull surface)

... The nearly flat transom has to resist mostly
compression of the hull section but as you can see from sugar scoops and
cut aways that is not that large.

Most of the sugar scoops I see have some structural support. The radical
ones on racing boats are built out of hi-tech materials, which are
usually far far stronger anyway. In other words, using the same
materials, a canoe stern could be built lighter. That doesn't mean it
would be as fast of course, and that is why you don't see canoe sterns
on racing boats.


... Put another way, closing the transom
mostly stops waves boarding.

hmm, I thought you claimed to have at least some tiny eddication as a
naval architect? Now you are showing ignorance of basic physics. Closing
in a transom does not stop waves from boarding. Reserve bouyancy stops
waves from boarding.

A transom would only have any effect in stopping a wave from boarding
after the pitch rate had exceeded the reserve bouyancy.




.....Do you get it now -as for strength, have you seen a transom
crushed by waves -or does one design boats for ramming exercises?

No because usually they are built strong enough. But that does not prove
that, pound for pound of like material, a canoe stern is stronger. Which
is an inherently stronger shape, a triangle or a square? A pyramid or a box?



Hey, I'm not the one agreeing with Jax ;)


But he he knew the answer to your question.

He didn't even understand the question. BTW you still haven't explained
your statements, or your own answer to the same question. Giving up?

BTW2 when are you going to pay me the money you owe on the bet you lost?

You ran away from explaining the capsize ratio, and here you are talking
about structural issues. Do you ever stick with a topic long enough to
actually learn anything?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

crealock was bull****ting. That ain't how it happens.

"The canoe stern, besides being a thing of beauty, is according to
Crealock, "a potential bow; for when the weather is truly bad, it is
the stern which will bear most of its venom."

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

The canoe stern is hardly unique to Valiant.

It also follows very old design ideas.

the design dates from when it was impossible to build a boat with a watertight
meeting of the ends of planks. Therefore, if one bent the planks around and up
so that they met above the waterline, you didn't have to worry so much about
taking on water.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

But we weren't talking about optimal racing designs. We were
originally talking about seaworthy designs for challenging conditions,
at least I think we were.


actually, we were talking about the loss of speed of a canoe stern as compared
to a transom, and noting that loss of transoms due to lack of structural
strength was not an issue.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

And structural strength.

there is no structural strength problem, therefore there is no issue.

Reserve bouyancy stops
waves from boarding.

canoe sterns have less reserve bouyancy than transom, one of the bigger
complaints re canoe sterns

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

not for the volume, not for the bouyancy.

A canoe stern, or almost any double-ender type stern, is
better triangulated than any transom.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

DSK wrote:



You ran away from explaining the capsize ratio,

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?

Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

JAXAshby wrote:

The canoe stern is hardly unique to Valiant.

It also follows very old design ideas.


the design dates from when it was impossible to build a boat with a watertight
meeting of the ends of planks. Therefore, if one bent the planks around and up
so that they met above the waterline, you didn't have to worry so much about
taking on water.

A good point, but Doug won't like it.

Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

DSK wrote:

JAXAshby wrote:


so, making a transom (that doesn't break) 10 times stronger is a *benefit*?

Sounds like a disadvantage to me. Extra cost, extra weight, slower boat speed,
all to fix a problem that doesn't exist.


That must explain why there's no such thing as hull speed... structural strength
can be zero because they never break... that means boats can be weightless!


Good lord! It's like a discussion with an imbecile.

Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

felton wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:52:40 +1300, MC wrote:


But we weren't talking about optimal racing designs. We were
originally talking about seaworthy designs for challenging conditions,
at least I think we were.


We are not talkng about optimal racing designs as much as why a canoe
stern is not that great except for people who expect to have to stop
sailing in storms.

Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

JAXAshby wrote:

not for the volume, not for the bouyancy.


A canoe stern, or almost any double-ender type stern, is
better triangulated than any transom.


But you you can't argue with an expert of triangulation!

LOL

Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

DSK wrote:



And structural strength. That was the specific point I raised which MC
seems to have not grasped.


Repost:

"
Oh that's a real benefit. I guess Doug must be saying that yachts often
sink from their transoms falling off. Hahahhahahahaha."


Cheers

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

JAXAshby wrote:
the design dates from when it was impossible to build a boat with a watertight
meeting of the ends of planks. Therefore, if one bent the planks around and up
so that they met above the waterline, you didn't have to worry so much about
taking on water.

How far back was this, Jax, the Vikings? In the 1800s they could
certainly make watertight plank ends.

Does your Scientific Sailboat Training include marine archeology now?

DSK

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

JAXAshby wrote:
(among other things)
canoe sterns have less reserve bouyancy than transom

Correct, Jax. Very good!

.... one of the bigger
complaints re canoe sterns

Uh-oh, you better talk it over with MC. He says that reserve bouyancy
isn't an issue because it's the transom that keeps out big scary waves.

DSK

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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.

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

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

In the 1800s they could
certainly make watertight plank ends.

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.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

He says that reserve bouyancy
isn't an issue because it's the transom that keeps out big scary waves.

the reserve bouyancy of a transom is one of the reasons a transom is prefered
over a canoe stern.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

dougies, it was you who were disagreeing. And now you are agreeing. If we
wait a couple hours will you be disagreeing again?

(among other things)
canoe sterns have less reserve bouyancy than transom

Correct, Jax. Very good!

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

professional naval architects

often those who claim to be such, are none of the three. In most jurisdictions
there is no more legal definition of a "naval architect" than there is of "lead
crystal"

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

professional naval architects

JAXAshby wrote:
often those who claim to be such, are none of the three. In most jurisdictions
there is no more legal definition of a "naval architect" than there is of "lead
crystal"

Sure, Jax whatever you say. Instead of "professional naval architects" let's just
call them a group of people who just happen to make their living designing
sailboats, and consulting with builders of sailboats, and teach engineering and/or
naval architecture, and providing references for insurance companies about
sailboats, and other activities relating to sailboats & the sport of sailing, and
are paid money for all these activities.

Of course you're smarter than all of them Jax. It will upset them greatly that you
disagree. The fact that you don't know what causes tip vortex and can't figure out
what hull speed means is irrelevant.

But you can explain reserve bouyancy to your pal MC. He won't listen to me when I
explain it. BTW did you ever figure out where you can buy a cement slab for your
mobile home?

DSK

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

boy dougies, you shore r one gullible squat.

professional naval architects

JAXAshby wrote:
often those who claim to be such, are none of the three. In most
jurisdictions
there is no more legal definition of a "naval architect" than there is of
"lead
crystal"

Sure, Jax whatever you say. Instead of "professional naval architects" let's
just
call them a group of people who just happen to make their living designing
sailboats, and consulting with builders of sailboats, and teach engineering
and/or
naval architecture, and providing references for insurance companies about
sailboats, and other activities relating to sailboats & the sport of sailing,
and
are paid money for all these activities.

Of course you're smarter than all of them Jax. It will upset them greatly
that you
disagree. The fact that you don't know what causes tip vortex and can't
figure out
what hull speed means is irrelevant.

But you can explain reserve bouyancy to your pal MC. He won't listen to me
when I
explain it. BTW did you ever figure out where you can buy a cement slab for
your
mobile home?

DSK

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

you don't know what causes tip vortex

oh, but I do indeed know, dougies. you just couldn't understand the six and
seven letter words I used to explain it. Either that or you believe vortices
are caused by hobgoblins.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

In the 1800s they could
certainly make watertight plank ends.

JAXAshby wrote:
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.

Is that a fact? Try looking up the history of caseinate glues.

But "glue" isn't necessary to make a watertight joint. Ever hear of "caulk"?
Shucks, well made lapped planks don't even need that.

In other words.... Jax, you're just plain wrong about this. Sorry, I tried to break
it to you gently.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

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.

I know you don't believe you are stupid, but everyone else believes you are.

In the 1800s they could
certainly make watertight plank ends.

JAXAshby wrote:
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.

Is that a fact? Try looking up the history of caseinate glues.

But "glue" isn't necessary to make a watertight joint. Ever hear of "caulk"?
Shucks, well made lapped planks don't even need that.

In other words.... Jax, you're just plain wrong about this. Sorry, I tried to
break
it to you gently.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

bye-bye, idgit.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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.

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. jaxineering
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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

BOAT SHOW REPORT.. MC & capsize screen
 

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