On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:51:05 +0200, "Bouler"
wrote:


"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht
. ..
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Maybe Bouler knows some more, it's his favorite ship if I'm
right... Regards,

Jeroen

"Leeboards" is the usual English term for the "sideboards"

You're right Bill.

I've heard of "sideboards" but not "leeboards", although the little I do
know of nautical terms makes that term also sensible.

The Dutch word is "zwaard" and my dictionary gives as translation
leeboards.
They are only used at the lee-side of the ship for not drifting away to much
if there is a lot of wind.
The put the leeboard as deep in the water as possible.
Search on "leeboard" on Google Jerry;-)

Here a small picture I found on the internet to see how ftlatbottoms can be
aground with now a problem at low tide.
I think this ship is a "Boeier", there are a lot of differend flatbottoms in
The Netherlands with all their specific names.
I by far dont know them all.
For a second there, I thought it was him, walking on water. )

"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...

Leeboards I learned from boatbuilder Dave Fleming.

I'm not sure about the bow configuration's purpose. Apparently it
worked quite well ass it has been in use for many centuries..

Maybe Bouler knows some more, it's his favorite ship if I'm
right... Regards,

You're right there, my father, grandfather and grandgrandfather
sailed these ships before I was born.
I cannot answer the question about the bowconfiguration but I think
because they were cargo ships there was more space in the ship than
with a small bow.
Dont forget, these ships were aground by low tide in the
"Zuiderzee" and the "Waddenzee" waiting for high tide to go on.
BTW, thanks for this beauty Jeroen.

Interesting stuff I don't recall hearing about before, Bouler. Thanks
for sharing it with the group.

I am hardly a nautical engineer but for maximum cargo capacity at a
given length and a given amount of material, it is necessary to
displace the most water possible using the shape of the hull. Thus, a
wide ship with a blunt bow shape tends to be the best since it
displaces a good deal of water and at the same time draws the least
depth making it ideal for inland waterways.

Thats exactly the reason, a lot of lakes have shallow water in The
Netherlands

OTOH, this configuration is
very wasteful of power and cannot get very much speed over the water
before friction caused by a gigantic bow wave overwhelms the power of
the engines. Thus, in the case of true "tall ships" such as the fast
clippers of the 19th century, speed was more valued than cargo tonnage
and draft. Today, however, the pendulum has swung back to cargo
capacity especially for container ships and tankers as power plants
have advanced tremendously in the last 20 or so years while costs have
skyrocketed.

Clippers were sailing in deep water.
In the early year the ships were nice and had class.
Nowadays they think what the cargo is and and build something around it that
floats and call it a ship;-(

Now, undoubtedly I've made a number of errors in the above but as I
said, my background is much more mechanical engineering from an
education point-of-view and specifically car body engineering from a
practical point-of-view so corrections to my factual errors would be
much appreciated.

It was not that bad Jerry;-)
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

"joevan" schreef in bericht
...

The Dutch word is "zwaard" and my dictionary gives as translation
leeboards.
They are only used at the lee-side of the ship for not drifting away to
much
if there is a lot of wind.
The put the leeboard as deep in the water as possible.
Search on "leeboard" on Google Jerry;-)

Here a small picture I found on the internet to see how ftlatbottoms can
be
aground with now a problem at low tide.
I think this ship is a "Boeier", there are a lot of differend flatbottoms
in
The Netherlands with all their specific names.
I by far dont know them all.

For a second there, I thought it was him, walking on water. )

LOL;-)
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...

Leeboards I learned from boatbuilder Dave Fleming.

I'm not sure about the bow configuration's purpose. Apparently it
worked quite well ass it has been in use for many centuries..

Maybe Bouler knows some more, it's his favorite ship if I'm
right... Regards,

You're right there, my father, grandfather and grandgrandfather
sailed these ships before I was born.
I cannot answer the question about the bowconfiguration but I
think because they were cargo ships there was more space in the
ship than with a small bow.
Dont forget, these ships were aground by low tide in the
"Zuiderzee" and the "Waddenzee" waiting for high tide to go on.
BTW, thanks for this beauty Jeroen.

Interesting stuff I don't recall hearing about before, Bouler.
Thanks for sharing it with the group.

I am hardly a nautical engineer but for maximum cargo capacity at a
given length and a given amount of material, it is necessary to
displace the most water possible using the shape of the hull. Thus,
a wide ship with a blunt bow shape tends to be the best since it
displaces a good deal of water and at the same time draws the least
depth making it ideal for inland waterways.

Thats exactly the reason, a lot of lakes have shallow water in The
Netherlands

OTOH, this configuration is
very wasteful of power and cannot get very much speed over the
water before friction caused by a gigantic bow wave overwhelms the
power of the engines. Thus, in the case of true "tall ships" such
as the fast clippers of the 19th century, speed was more valued
than cargo tonnage and draft. Today, however, the pendulum has
swung back to cargo capacity especially for container ships and
tankers as power plants have advanced tremendously in the last 20
or so years while costs have skyrocketed.

Clippers were sailing in deep water.
In the early year the ships were nice and had class.
Nowadays they think what the cargo is and and build something around
it that floats and call it a ship;-(

I understand the purpose of the clippers and the fact that because of
both their hull design and the configuration of their sails they were
unsuited for smaller bodies of water and totally unsuited for rivers
and canals. However, I used the clippers as an example of the
difference in hull designs for speed vs. cargo capacity.

One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms between a
huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of the fleet such
as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud passenger liners
such as the SS United States or the first Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had
Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so concerned with setting a new
speed record for a transatlantic crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he
would have both slowed down and move 100 miles or so south when warned
about the many sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to
take the risk because being more conservative but decreasing his risk
would have cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he
learned to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew,
and himself.

Now, undoubtedly I've made a number of errors in the above but as I
said, my background is much more mechanical engineering from an
education point-of-view and specifically car body engineering from
a practical point-of-view so corrections to my factual errors would
be much appreciated.

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to lead
with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not have a lot
of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you think?

--
HEMI - Powered, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht
...

OTOH, this configuration is
very wasteful of power and cannot get very much speed over the
water before friction caused by a gigantic bow wave overwhelms the
power of the engines. Thus, in the case of true "tall ships" such
as the fast clippers of the 19th century, speed was more valued
than cargo tonnage and draft. Today, however, the pendulum has
swung back to cargo capacity especially for container ships and
tankers as power plants have advanced tremendously in the last 20
or so years while costs have skyrocketed.

Clippers were sailing in deep water.
In the early year the ships were nice and had class.
Nowadays they think what the cargo is and and build something around
it that floats and call it a ship;-(

I understand the purpose of the clippers and the fact that because of
both their hull design and the configuration of their sails they were
unsuited for smaller bodies of water and totally unsuited for rivers
and canals. However, I used the clippers as an example of the
difference in hull designs for speed vs. cargo capacity.

I understand.

One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms between a
huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of the fleet such
as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud passenger liners
such as the SS United States or the first Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had
Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so concerned with setting a new
speed record for a transatlantic crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he
would have both slowed down and move 100 miles or so south when warned
about the many sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to
take the risk because being more conservative but decreasing his risk
would have cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he
learned to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew,
and himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were buildin
to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough good iron for the
rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of the Titanic, one of the
reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of rumours
about the Titanic.

Now, undoubtedly I've made a number of errors in the above but as I
said, my background is much more mechanical engineering from an
education point-of-view and specifically car body engineering from
a practical point-of-view so corrections to my factual errors would
be much appreciated.

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to lead
with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not have a lot
of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

"Bouler" schreef in bericht
.. .


One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms between a
huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of the fleet such
as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud passenger liners
such as the SS United States or the first Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had
Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so concerned with setting a new
speed record for a transatlantic crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he
would have both slowed down and move 100 miles or so south when warned
about the many sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to
take the risk because being more conservative but decreasing his risk
would have cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he
learned to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew,
and himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were buildin
to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough good iron for the
rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of the Titanic, one of the
reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of
rumours about the Titanic.

Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...ets_book_says/
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms
between a huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of
the fleet such as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud
passenger liners such as the SS United States or the first Queen
Elizabeth. In fact, had Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so
concerned with setting a new speed record for a transatlantic
crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he would have both slowed down
and move 100 miles or so south when warned about the many sightings
of icebergs in his path, but he decided to take the risk because
being more conservative but decreasing his risk would have cost him
nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he learned to his
sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew, and
himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were
buildin to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough
good iron for the rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of
the Titanic, one of the reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of
rumours about the Titanic.

There are really two parts of the Titanic disaster/tragedy still being
investigated: the causes related to Capt. Smith's decision to
(apparently) ignore warnings from other vessels and modern information
just now coming to light as to structural weaknesses in the hull of the
ship itself. For the latter, one can point to the design standards for
metalurgy and riveting of the day as well as theories still being
investigated as to whether a gash was actually ripped open on the
starboard side or just many plates that buckled. Also, new information
suggests that the bottom of the hull fatally scraped along an
outcropping the the ice berg which ruptured the hill longitudinally for
some distance. Both are virtually impossible to prove or disprove even
with several successful dives on the wreakage site because the hull
sits in a position where it is impossible to determine a root cause and
reluctance to bring up any more steel makes it difficult to do more
extensive metalurgy studies. For the former, one can read the eye
witness accounts of the sinking from survivors and see gross
inconsistencies, such as whether the hull did or did not break in half
before the ship went down (it is now clearly known that it did crack in
half as the bow and stern sections of the wreakage are a couple of
miles apart).

And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety standards
of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at least for
wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking, Bouler, you're
into MY areas of expertise, especially those of engineering and amateur
historian, but NOT those of a nautical nature per se.

Have a good day and thanks for a stimulating discussion!

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to
lead with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not
have a lot of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you
think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.

I learned this trick from an older engineer early in my Chrysler career
when I still thought I was God's gift to the science and practice of
engineering. Briefly stated, I was told quite profanely and quite
abruptly that if one thinks they know, say, 85% of a given thing and
wish to find out the rest from the true experts, the LAST thing to do
is state all the stuff already known. Rather, I was told, to be very
humble and ask the expert to explain the basics of the issue, listen
patiently during the 85% already known, then perk up the ears when the
remaining 15% is told. The advantage, which I came to find out later
was especially valuable, is that the true expert is now one's friend
and my reputation is enhanced as a reasonable person rather than what
some people call a smart-ass or young whipper snapper. You might recall
during our gettting to know each other phase here that I used this
technique politely to learn the true nature of the on-topic ships for
this NG under the guise of asking a question about my understanding of
the term "tall ship", and NOT stating my facts as if they were the
Gospel because while I thought I was correct, I KNEW that you would
have the right definition for the various categories of sail and
powered boats and ships.

Again, thanks for the excellent discussion.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms
between a huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of
the fleet such as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once
proud passenger liners such as the SS United States or the first
Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been
so concerned with setting a new speed record for a transatlantic
crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he would have both slowed down
and move 100 miles or so south when warned about the many
sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to take the risk
because being more conservative but decreasing his risk would have
cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he learned
to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew, and
himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were
buildin to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough
good iron for the rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of
the Titanic, one of the reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot
of rumours about the Titanic.

Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...rivets_book_sa
ys/

As Mr. Spock oft said to Capt. Kirk - "Captain, I shall consider it!".
Actually, I'll go look right now, as I've come to know you as a well-
read and very knowledgeable source of knowledge of things ships and
boats, and I am interested in what you have to say. Please stay tuned!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

Wow,

all this discussion after a few skutsje pictures.. Thanx for all the
info all contributors. Lee-boards was the term I was looking for. Altyhough
a bit late, thanx!

Regards,

Jeroen

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
Here you can read what I wrote.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/titan...ivets_book_say
s/

Bouler, I looked here but cannot find a reference to you specifically.
Could you please provide a closer link into the American Bar
Association web site where you wrote an article on the rivets of the
Titanic?

I commented on the rivets briefly, I shall expand from my somewhat
meager knowledge of this particular aspect of the disaster.

To my knowledge, the rivet issue is one of faulty metalurgy based on
common practice of ship builders of the day. The problem is believed to
be two-fold: steel with an inconsistent amount of carbon content making
ductility variable from quite soft to extremely brittle based on
original pouring of the rivets and the already present ductility
variability further aggravated by some amount of annealing due to the
temperature the rivets were heated to, presumeably red-hot, from some
annealing down to very little. If an already brittle steel were
incompletely annealed by the heating process, it is much more likely to
fracture and fail under much less than it's design stresses and
strains, thus in the case of the Titanic, it is believed that many
rivets simply popped as the hull scraped along a submerged part of the
iceberg, allowing water to seep in at an unanticipated rate through
partially buckled steel hull plates.

Expanding on some other engineering aspects believed relevant in the
Titanic sinking, the steel of the hull plates themselves were also
suspected with modern technology and investigation techniques to be
substandard from both a normal yield strength and from a tendency to be
too brittle, again leading to buckled and sheared off hull plates which
would cause vast amounts of water to overwhelm the watertight bulkhead
doors and sink the ships. Unfortunatly, this cannot be confirmed or
dismissed as the hull is lying (laying?) on its starboard side.

Speaking of starboard, British merchant (and possibly naval) ships of
the day used a peculiar form of port and starboard steering conventions
so the officer on duty when the lookout reported the iceberg looming
ahead is believed to have order "hard a starboard", meaning really
"turn hard left". This may or may not have been correct in the first
place, but worse, could have actually been counter-productive as the
forward motion of the ship and the fact that the rudder is at the stern
would cause the stern to move to starboard if the order were given
correctly as it should which should have moved the bow and first few
hundred feet of the hull away from the berg. However, inertia from a
speed of around 23-24 mph (I believe it was going around 21 knots but
I'm not certain of this) would cause the ship to lurch on for some
distance before a turn in either direction could be affected. That,
combined with unexpected effects of a full astern propulsion, again,
supposedly ordered, might cause the bow 1/4 or so of the ship to
actually move into the berg for quite some time. Again, AFAIK, nothing
definitive can be said for these theories because of lack of physical
evidence of where the rudder was positioned and what the engines were
actually doing at the time of the collision but prior to the sinking.

Now, using modern computer CAE and simulation computer technology, it
is strongly believed that the hull could not possibly have withstood
the bending stresses of a sinking by the bow at an angle in excess of,
I believe, some 11 degrees, thus the hull can be shown to have broken i
half BEFORE the ship slipped under the sea, and is confirmed by the
relative positions of the bow and stern halves.

So, it is my understanding that the tragedy COULD have been prevented
entirely if Capt. Smith had heeded warnings of icebergs along the main
shipping lanes and ignored his own instincts as well as members of
White Star Lines officials on board. However, once the sequence of
events sealed the Titanic's fate hours before the actual collision with
the iceberg, it may STILL have been possible for Titanic to have
sustained enough LESS damage to have at least stayed afloat long enough
for the Carpathia [sp?] to arrive some 4 hours later, perhaps by
delaying or simply not issuing the hard a starboard order combined with
what my limited research suggests WAS an order for full astern power
which likely exacerbated the entire scenario.

Whew! Having said all of that, I must include my usual disclaimer: I am
an AMATEUR historian, and a rather poor one at that, and my nautical
knowledge is quite limited beyond simple strenght of materials
engineering as I have outlined above. I have not personally done a deep
dive (no pun intended!) research job on this, but simply evaluated
available facts from old Encylopedia Brittannica and similar
publications, a minor bit of Googling, but mainly public TV, Discovery
Channel, and The History Channel episodes that more or less have fully
explored the subject. The trouble with my kind of ersatz "research" is
that I must try to separate truth from drama on made-for-television
shows where the true intent is to sell air time, however, what I see on
TV especially comparing traditional views with those of the several
successful dives on the wreak seem to indicate the causes of the
sinking to be multiple.

In the end, though, does it really matter? I mean, the ship DID sink,
albeit NOT the way it is ludicrously portrayed in the movie "Raise the
Titanic!" which relies on the incorrect notion (of the time) that the
hull was intact, but simply filled with water.

Again, Bouler, I bow to your superior "knowledge of the sea" on all of
this and would still love to read your full account, so please get me
closer if you can. Thank you, and I know return control of your TV set
to you!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"