"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design.
Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Good grief.

Use steel in the places you need strength.
Use aluminum in the places you need light weight.
Use titanium when you need both.

Eisboch

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:54:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

Have you ever seen them cut the superstructure away, lift it off to get
to the engineering equipment below

It often requires a chain saw to replace the engines on small
fiberglass yachts. Sometimes they go through the side of the hull.

Casady

On Dec 4, 11:43*am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:
The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. *Lots
of cracks happening. *So better designers were needed. *Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Well, kind of. There are lots of variables that will put holes in that
blanket statement. If it were going to be a generality then you could
include wood, too.

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In northern climes the ships could be made of ice.
The sailors would wear "penguin" dress and waddle.
Enemy recon would just see ice floes.
With penguins.

--Vic

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design.
Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady


Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In northern climes the ships could be made of ice.
The sailors would wear "penguin" dress and waddle.
Enemy recon would just see ice floes.
With penguins.

--Vic

Say what! No penguins up here......maybe a polar bear or two.

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Harry is a skin-flint. Wait till he sees the bill for escorting a whale
through the canal at Cape Cod Massachusetts.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:07:32 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design.
Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Good grief.

Use steel in the places you need strength.
Use aluminum in the places you need light weight.
Use titanium when you need both.

I'm not an expert on steel or aluminum, but a few years ago I had to
do some research on this very subject.

As I understand it, and again this is remembering what I learned at
the time, the major difference between steel and aluminum is that
aluminum will reach it's failure point, given the same strength
standard, 40% sooner than steel.

Again, that's how I remember the issue.

I could be entirely wrong.

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H



Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.