Transverse frame calculation

[conceptia]

Richard, just ignore this guy. It is the best thing we can do right now. Thank you Brent for giving us some good laughs, but we are not interested in circus.

Originally Posted by conceptia

Richard, just ignore this guy. It is the best thing we can do right now. Thank you Brent for giving us some good laughs, but we are not interested in circus.

Thats unfortunately not possible mate. He is around every second thread related to building materials or methods, offering his non existant "knowledge" and beating his drum.

The entire forum is contradicting his statements for years, he do´nt bother.

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by apex1

The entire forum is contradicting his statements for years, he do´nt bother.

It appears he hasn't progressed from learning the basics of tension and compression in structural members, despite attempts to educate:
Welding a steel hull

As you nicely wrote some time again Richard, far too many come on this forum armed with their preconceived ideas looking for validation and wont be changed, no matter what. Despite the established engineering evidence to the contrary. All sounds far too familiar!

[LyndonJ]

This pot has no frames.

It's survived torture tests
it was washed up on a beach,
hit a ship and has crossed oceans with ease .

It's curved, so it's all in compression
Pots like this have been built up to 60 feet across

It's all going in my book


Brent
why don't you ever answer specific critisism and just keep popping out with the same hackneed arguemnts?

It's not all in compression,
you don't understand buckling
looking at thae other thread Ad Hoc linked to ,
you don't understand contraflexure or fatigue

You just happened onto an idea that worked for small boats ( well done) but you are trying to make it work for big boats and you are misguiding people with your mis-understanding of structures.

[sorenfdk]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Like origami boats , glass hulls use shape for stiffness. Why don't they have frames? Shape makes frames redundant. It also works for steel .

Many "glass hulls" (as you call them) use frames (and bulkheads, that often serve the same purpose).
Once again you prove that you don't know much about serious yachtdesign and -builing.

[Northman]

Originally Posted by LyndonJ

Brent

I think the real problem is that you extrapolate from experience with 30 foot vessels and make unfounded claims for vessels up to 60 feet without due basis of reasoning except that it works for small boats.

...

So where is the boundary for transverseless designs? Probably a lot smaller than you reason.

My apologies for interrupting the ritual headbanging between the Galileo of boatbuilding and the guardians of the holy grail. Among the latter there seem to be two schools of thought - those who condemn everything to do with Origami boatbuilding on general principle and those criticizing that boats without transversial framing cannot be build safely beyond a certain size. I would be interested in opinions to where this size limit would be and/or if the principal concerns also apply to the range in size of boats of Brent Swains designs, that is from 26 to 40 ft? From what I have seen, also the framing e.g. in the 40 ft Norman designed by respected Van de Stadt is rather modest and located at a few high stress areas like the chain-plates.
Thanks for any input!

Walter

[dskira]

Originally Posted by Northman

My apologies for interrupting the ritual headbanging between the Galileo of boatbuilding and the guardians of the holy grail. Among the latter there seem to be two schools of thought - those who condemn everything to do with Origami boatbuilding on general principle and those criticizing that boats without transversial framing cannot be build safely beyond a certain size. I would be interested in opinions to where this size limit would be and/or if the principal concerns also apply to the range in size of boats of Brent Swains designs, that is from 26 to 40 ft? From what I have seen, also the framing e.g. in the 40 ft Norman designed by respected Van de Stadt is rather modest and located at a few high stress areas like the chain-plates.
Thanks for any input!

Walter

Yacht design and naval architecture was and will be never divided in two groups: with frames or without frames. That the ludicrous thematic invented by Brent.
Your question is the result of it.
You design the boat the way it should be design, period.
Brent do not gasp this concept.
It is very simple, but of course you have to know what you are doing, and applies the right amount of engineering for the purpose intended by the vessel.
It's call naval architecture.

Daniel

[hoytedow]

Speaking as a non-architect of any kind I must say that there is a reason for frames.: They brace. Would you panel a house and only tack the sheet around the edges? No. Why? Because the panel will sway and buckle and not hold its shape. Even soup cans are corrugated to give them strength. Those very corrugations act in place of framing to stiffen the can. Do see any corrugations on a hull before a collision? No. It would interfere with slipping through the water. Better no corrugations until after the collision. Better no collision at all, but $#!* happens.

[Northman]

Originally Posted by dskira

Yacht design and naval architecture was and will be never divided in two groups: with frames or without frames. That the ludicrous thematic invented by Brent.
Your question is the result of it.
You design the boat the way it should be design, period.
Brent do not gasp this concept.
It is very simple, but of course you have to know what you are doing, and applies the right amount of engineering for the purpose intended by the vessel.
It's call naval architecture.

Daniel

Daniel, I take it that you disagree with LyndonJ then when he questioned Brent Swains argument "what works for a 30 ft boat must work for every boat", but not that smaller boats can be build without transversial frames (I think he mentioned 30 ft)?
Are you saying that this Origami concept doesn't work at all?
You write "You design the boat the way it should be design, period." That's really not very helpful!

Walter

Originally Posted by Northman

My apologies for interrupting the ritual headbanging between the Galileo of boatbuilding and the guardians of the holy grail.

There is no such ritual here. But would be nice to have!?

I would be interested in opinions to where this size limit would be and/or if the principal concerns also apply to the range in size of boats of Brent Swains designs, that is from 26 to 40 ft?

Walter

Brent Swain does not design boats! He hammers them together.

Design has a completely different meaning which is correlated with engineering and is not found in his vessels (and neither in his knowledge).

Theoretically one could produce frameless hulls up to far over hundred feet in length. The limits are in welding procedures and bending strength mainly. But such a vessel would hardly float, let alone carry any payload.

Not that the method is completely nuts, no, it has it´s merits for a novice builder. When it is understood that the lack of frames has to be balanced by plate size and plate torture one can come out with a seaworthy hull. Well, paying just a weight penalty over a well designed / engineered structure.

The common consensus is a max. length of about 40 / 45 ft .

Brent is not the inventor of this method btw.! And not the only "pope" beating that drum.
"Luft" in Germany is another Apostel of this religious (because not scientific) movement.


Regards
Richard

[dskira]

Originally Posted by Northman

Daniel, I take it that you disagree with LyndonJ then when he questioned Brent Swains argument "what works for a 30 ft boat must work for every boat", but not that smaller boats can be build without transversial frames (I think he mentioned 30 ft)?
Are you saying that this Origami concept doesn't work at all?
You write "You design the boat the way it should be design, period." That's really not very helpful!

Walter

You don't need help, your question is wrong. You just want to argue.
As I said I don't disagree nor agree with nobody. As a designer I agree with what is right for the intended use of the vessel.
Do I have to repeat myself again?
So read my post again.
Daniel

Originally Posted by dskira

You don't need help, your question is wrong. You just want to argue.

Daniel, my friend,

see the facts:

wood is a inferior material and forests cannot fly,



frames in boats are a waste of time and weight (sourcehttp://www.dgzrs.de/




only idiots are building to such methods

http://www.luerssen.de/flash.html


steel is the only one boat building material to stand the test of time



Brent has crossed the Pacific so many times........soo many times, we only can worship that.

http://www.vancouverisland.com/Trans...tails.asp?id=6



what have we mere mortals to hold against that?

Regards
Richard

[hoytedow]

Points for Richard, someone. A picture is worth a thousand words and there are 4 great pictures to illustrate the thoughts. Equivalent to 4000 well said words.

[Brent Swain]

I have never claimed that frames are not needed for any sized boat. My last post makes that clear. It is a compliment when some have to put words in my mouth, in order to have something to argue about. Thanks for the compliment.
I think what happened with scantling rules, is they were devised when only huge ships were made out of steel, and when we began making smaller and smaller boats out of steel, they simply scaled down the scantling rules, until they reached a point where the law of mechanical simlitude made their assumptions and down scaling irrelevant.
Yes there is a point where frames become necessary, the only disagreement being at what size this becomes the case.
I have suggested around 60 feet, based on the success of 55 footers in a wide variety of cruising conditions, year round, in some of the roughest waters anywhere..
Compression on an arc is all compression. Most of the scantling rules are derived on the naive assumption that any part of a hull is a flat surface, and based on pounds per sq inch on a flat surface, which is far removed form the reality of a curved hull surface, supported by chines and decks. Most don't take into account decks, tank tops and bottom plates as massively strong , fully welded bulkheads, relatively close together.
Thanks for the opportunity to point out these facts . While they may go over the heads of blind, or super myopic traditionalists , some on this site have the intelligence to "GET IT.".

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by apex1

And thats your only reason to contribute here!............. Buy my book

STOP BEATING YOUR DRUM HERE BRENT!

Almost all of the serious members have begged you to stop your dumb claims and senseless drivel about structures you do´nt comprehend!

GET IT!!!

As far as you are concerned , anything you don't agree with is a lie.
You remind me of the old guy I hitched a ride with , while building my first boat. When I told him of boats in the 30 to 40 foot range crossing oceans he said "Stories! They are all lies . It takes at least a 100 footer to cross an ocean. Any stories of anyone crossing an ocean in anything under 100 feet are all lies."
You have a lot in common with that old guy.
Tell Jean Marc , who I last saw at Xmas Island in his aluminium origami 55 footer, that he and I were just imagining it. Tell him and Harvey that their boats which they have been living aboard and cruising on for many years,that their boats don't exist. They have just been imagining it. Tell that to the people on the Dock at Comox , Ladysmith and Bella Bella, who see their boats regularly, that they are just imagining it and that what they are seeing, doesn't exist.
Surely, there are people on this site who see many of my boats cruising the BC coast for decades, and cruising Mexico and the South Pacific, for decades. Let's have some feedback from them. Then Daniel can tel you that you have ben imagining the whole thing, and that those boats are just a figment of your imagination. Then we can all tell Daniel to go take his medication.