Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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. ) |
#12
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"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) |
#13
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"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) |
#14
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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 ****!" |
#15
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
"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) |
#16
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
Link Titanic disaster
"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) |
#17
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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 |
#18
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
Link Titanic disaster
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 ****!" |
#19
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 4 of 5 DSC_8043_bewerkt.jpg
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 |
#20
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.tall-ships
|
|||
|
|||
Link Titanic disaster
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 ****!" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 2 of 5 DSC_8041_bewerkt.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 3 of 5 DSC_8042_bewerkt.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL - Friesland _ Prinsenhof _ tacking a skutsje - file 1 of 5 DSC_8040_bewerkt.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL [Friesland] various pictures - file 13 of 14 Friesland-13.jpg | Tall Ship Photos | |||
NL [Friesland] various pictures - file 12 of 14 Friesland-12.jpg | Tall Ship Photos |