Origami steel yacht construction

[Northman]

Originally Posted by LyndonJ

He's been caught out now lying wholesale about several issues. It's so stupid to have so much attitude and get it so totally wrong, then use lies as a marketing tool.

His marketing and engineering are based on tall anecdotal tales of boats hitting things and being hit in turn. Some of them are gross distortions others were probably lucky. But with BS you'd never know.

Anyone considering building one of his designs should read the other thread.

And for the sake of public information this is the thread LyndonJ is referring to:

Transverse frame calculation

There are some really crucial bits of information in this thread that nobody still interested in BS Origami should miss.

Ah, and Wynand: For all I care we could use BS either way - even as synonyms ...

Walter

[Brent Swain]

You say shape has no effect on stiffness , and you call me a liar? Take a flat piece if 16 guage steel ,12 inches wide. How stiff is it? Then take a piece of 16 gauge tubing, 12 inches in circumfrence . How stiff is it? According to your theories, they are the same stiffness, as shape has no effect on stiffness. Thus ,according to your theories, that shape has little effect on stiffness, a piece of flat aluminium is just as suitable for a mast as a piece of tubing the same thickness and circumfrence. No you say? So much for your theories, on which most of your arguments are based. The difference? Shape alone.
The Titanic was, according to huge piles of mathematical calculations, made by the top architects of her time,"unsinkable.' The fact that she sank? That was just an anecdote, and when such anecdotes conflict with calculations , calculations overule anecdotes?
That is the basis of many of your arguments.
Math is a guideline, which, without hands on cruising experience and common sense , wont by itself result in a superior boat, as you claim
Eclectus ended up cruising down the BC coast , the US west coast, Panama, thru the Caribean, and up the east coast, then back to the Caribean , then across the Atlantic to England, in less time than the fellow employee, who told him he should look for another designer and builder, took to pay for his boat (a route your self interest would "approve"of.).
That, envy, the threat resourcefulness poses to the livelihoods of those who make a living off grossly overpriced boats, and Daniels decree that anyone who gets off the treadmill to enjoy the freedom of the cruising lifestyle ,is a parasite and sponge, is why many of you really object to what I've done for so many cruisers . Like Daniel you feel amoral obligation to keep people on the treadmill, paying you for as long as possible. You say I didn't show respect for him? Far more than he has ever shown me.
Welder fitter didn't get discouraged by what he saw in origami boats in Royston BC. What really pissed him off was his inability to successfully badmouth Alex Christie's boat down to a point where Alex was forced to give it to him at a fraction the cost of materials.
The new owner ,Haidan is extremely happy with the boat, and is now cruising and living aboard . He feels he got a great deal at Alex's asking price.
No , this debate, from your perspective , as you have just pointed out, is not about technical points. Its about envy and vindictivness. When the envious and vindictive are offended, it can be taken as a compliment, as it proves I'm doing things right. I have no desire to be admired by the envious and vindictive.
Clive has been told of the demolition derby challenge. It's his boat ,so his choice, but its the kind of thing Clive would thoroughly enjoy. As his book shows he definitely has an appetite for adventure.
How many of you have told us of how many of your designs are out cruising, and what torture tests they have endured?Other than Daniels showing of a 30's vintage design, not much. There is as much logic in worry about anyone building such a boat, as Ford Motors worrying about someone getting the plans for a horse drawn buggy from a museum, undermining their profitability.

[Ad Hoc]

Northman,

Thanks for providing the link. It is, as you say, a very valuable read for anyone thinking about going down the origami route before they do so.

Oh dear, this is just utter nonsense again, the same old tired anecdotes and arguments as on the thread posted above by Northman. And again, nothing of any substance.

So one final go…here is your chance Brent to show everyone your knowledge about structural design. I asked this question not once not twice but repeatedly on the previous thread, for you to prove your understanding of YOUR claims of how YOU claim YOU know so much more than anyone else. So here it is again:

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

You say shape has no effect on stiffness , and you call me a liar? Take a flat piece if 16 guage steel ,12 inches wide. How stiff is it?

Then take a piece of 16 gauge tubing, 12 inches in circumfrence . How stiff is it?

So for YOU to state such YOU, yes that is YOU must provide us with evidence in the form of simple structural design calculations, which can be proven by anyone else anywhere, to support YOUR claim that YOUR statement above is correct.

If your reply is anything other than in the simple form of showing us the calculations and answer for everyone to read, you are clearly ill equipped to provide anyone with any structural advice and it is negligent to continue to do so.

[SheetWise]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

So one final go…here is your chance Brent to show everyone your knowledge about structural design. I asked this question not once not twice but repeatedly on the previous thread, for you to prove your understanding of YOUR claims of how YOU claim YOU know so much more than anyone else. So here it is again:

So for YOU to state such YOU, yes that is YOU must provide us with evidence in the form of simple structural design calculations, which can be proven by anyone else anywhere, to support YOUR claim that YOUR statement above is correct.

If your reply is anything other than in the simple form of showing us the calculations and answer for everyone to read, you are clearly ill equipped to provide anyone with any structural advice and it is negligent to continue to do so.

WAIT -- I don' t believe what I'm reading. Are you asking Brent to defend his claim that a section of flat 16 gauge steel, 12 inches wide, is less stiff than a section of 16 gauge tubing 12 inches in circumference?

I understand that the person making the claim should be responsible to defend it -- but why are you challenging a claim he can obviously defend? (I'm pretty sure he can -- if not, I will) .

The question is whether or not this claim applies to his designs.

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by SheetWise

WAIT -- I don' t believe what I'm reading. Are you asking Brent to defend his claim that a section of flat 16 gauge steel, 12 inches wide, is less stiff than a section of 16 gauge tubing 12 inches in circumference?

Correct. But rather than use words, which any one with zero training and understanding can say, use real engineering principals to justfy ones claim. It is what real professional engineers/designers do...

Originally Posted by SheetWise

The question is whether or not this claim applies to his designs.

Baby steps....one at a time...

[Brent Swain]

[quote=dskira;369969]When I designed and latter on built (sorry, I built too, but that is not relevant since you want to be the only one here) if we don't put frames the vessel will have been not able to do its work properly due to wickness, let alone having the cargo capacity strength needed to pay for itself and being safe. They have to make long crossing, light and full, buy all weather. The deck is weakest point, the design need more attention since some renforcement can be detrimental localizing the stress inset of difusing it. The corner of cargo hacth is always the start of the failure. As always it is a balance.

The deck is the weakest point because it doesn't have much of the structural advantage of shape .

These stresses on huge ships have little relevance in smaller craft. Small yacht hatches dot have the same loads. A tanker will break in half if it is not loaded properly. Does that mean we should be careful where we put the groceries on a 60 footer, for fear it will break in half? According to your theories it will.

The rouding of the steel will not get it stronger, it still a flat plate. And the control of the shape is nill, and that is not acceptable for an proffessional customer.

Then according to this theory, the rounding of a mast gives it no structural advantage over a flat sheet of aluminium with the same amount of metal? So much for that theory, and your credibility on the issue!


Now when the round plate is transformed in chine on your design, you have an intense stress point there, and that is no good practice. In steel you have to avoid brutal change in a short length. The welding can't save it.

All the stress there is in compression. So you say the steel will simply squish out of the way? So much for your credibility, again!


Of course since you don't design you can't control any form any shape.
Steel winn, you are just the welder without power. It's sad to waste intelligence for the sake of welding.

Minimizing welding, and simplifying things , is intelligence.So much for your credibility, again!


By the way hows your weight distribution is done? I mean before you start building.

Calculations on the lines drawing and double checking with the model as well as several hundred boats built.

By the way in your Paul 60' the fore step mast is a accident to happens. It will first twist the plating, second will wooble the deck, and third the mast will go thru the hull. No saine insurer will touch this thing.
If I was you I will put a disclamer: Paul is wrong, I never designed this boat.

You are right, I never designed this boat. Jack did. I'd never design such a boat with less than 3/8th plate . I would put a heavy piece of plate around the mast, with additional stiffeners beneath it. Unlike Bermuda rigs, the only compression on a junk rig is the weight , far less than the tensile strength of hull plate.
Its not my Paul 60. Again you lie!


As for your other boat, they all are ceiled in wood inside and seams to cost much more that a Swan. Even cast bronze, nice $5000 electronics, rigging galore, engine, shafts and so on.

I tell them to avoid the pricey stuff and get their asses out cruising. I can't force them to follow my advice, any more than you can. I got cruising for under $6,000 . They buy everything retail, and then ask "Why cost so much" I tell them "Because you didn't listen."
Winston Bushnell, a master scrounger, got sailing for $14 K in a 36.
It is possible in my boats , impossible in a ten times more expensive hull and decks.


Nice saving theorie, the reality on you pictures tell an other story. Could show us your book? Of a finish boat of course.

I haven't seen a scanner in years, and the libraries on Vancouver Island got rid of them years ago. Too many arguments about booked tim, while the scanner was being used.
There are a couple of photos of my 36 in my book and lots on our chatline , both under construction and finished.


The hull always cost little, in every vessel. 101 shipbuilder.

How big a percentage of the finished boat a hull costs ,varies according to how good a scrounger the owner is. Hard to scrounge 8ft by 36 ft sheets, far easier with wood, used sails etc etc, altho one owner found his steel for his decks and cabin for $12 a5X12 ft sheet in a scrapyard.
With so much of the detail on a steel boat fabricated and welded down,the finished steelwork represents a much larger portion of the cost of the finished boat than a fibreglass or wood hull, where one has to go out and buy so much detail, altho anyone building a wood or fibreglass boat would save a fortune with a welder and some basic metal working tools.
For me it cost me $4K to get her launched and $6K tota, to get sailing and living aboard.
.
Fisherman and commercial are tough with the money, every cent is acconted, but you don't know that.

It's often money vs time. Sometimes throwing money at a problem is more economical at the time, if it is good fishing in limited time.
.
Now giving us number of stress to prove you right is wrong.
Number are just that, it is how you use them which make the difference.
Since you don't make plans, why you bother with number. You are worst than an engineer, or even a naval architect.

I use a blend of math, logic and experience, from the many boats out cruising. Neither is any good without the other.

By the way I would like to mention, a vessel of a certain size is never ever designed by one person, same for building. I thought you knew that, but evidently you don't, since your very mean attack on my resume prove it.

Many boats are designed by one person.

Brent you are just lucky, you devised a system, you don't know why it works.

Several hundred boats, experiencing often severe conditions, prove it works, far beyond any proof your numbers can give .When your numbers disagree with the reality of experience, then your numbers are wrong.

And you think: it works, I am a genius. Until the **** happens. It always happens, don't kidd yourself. Fortunatly you built always the same boat, the risk is less.

They told me 30 years ago that they would fold up the first time they hit anything. That was thirty years , hundreds of thousands of miles and many severe groundings, and collisions ago. Hasn't happened yet. How many "approved by your numbers "boats have had structural problems in that time? Far more. Maybe you should be more concerned about proven structural failures ,than disproven predictions.

Must be boring to built the same boat for 30 years.

When I build a boat , the owners work with me. When they see the hull take shape in front of them in a couple of days , their enthusiasm is contagious. It feels like I'm building my own boat for the first time , every time. Then I see them out cruising in boats they could have never afforded any other way. That could never get boring.

[M&M Ovenden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

[SheetWise]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

Baby steps....one at a time...

Ad Hoc -- I get what you're saying. My point is that extreme abstractions don't work for anybody. Bending flat steel into a cylinder makes that material stronger. That's one of Brent's argument. Let's concede that one.

If you want to go back to proving that 1+1=2, most of us know how many steps it takes. Let's skip that. Brent has made claims -- don't challenge what you know to be true or provable.

Challenge what you know to be false.

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by SheetWise

Ad Hoc -- I get what you're saying. My point is that extreme abstractions don't work for anybody. Bending flat steel into a cylinder makes that material stronger. That's one of Brent's argument. Let's concede that one.

Sorry sheetwise, but no, i wont concede this one. I don't think you do get what I am saying.

Also, it doesn’t make it ‘stronger’, it makes it ‘stiffer’, two separate engineering definitions. But how much stiffer….that is for Brent to supply the answer, as HE made this claim, no one else.

And with respect, again you’re missing the main point. The claims, whilst “sounding very easy and plausible” are just a collection of words. Words which anyone can throw about and embellish.

The heart has 4 values and keeps you alive….this is easy to say to anyone. How it does this, is not so easy to explain…why??...because I am not a medical doctor nor a heart surgeon. Doesn’t make the statement false, other than it just exposes me as a non-medical person throwing words around to sound impressive and/or knowledgeable and thus, should not provide medical advice.

Words are easy and cheap.

If Brent has made a claim, in words, about an engineering “known facts”, then He, no one else, not you or anyone else reading, HE must demonstrate that HE can prove this in engineering terms with structural reasoning and calculations to support the statement and NOT just words.

Since if he cannot, then his words, are just that...words with no understanding of what one is saying. Thus those words are then a misappropriation of the facts.

Perhaps I am making my point now?

[SheetWise]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

If Brent has made a claim, in words, about an engineering 'known facts', then He, no one else, not you or anyone else reading, HE must demonstrate that HE can prove this in engineering terms with structural reasoning and calculations to support the statement and NOT just words.

Understood. I hope he replies and this can go to rest.

In the meantime -- I hope you're not going to make me address you as Yoda or something like that.

[bearflag]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

Sorry sheetwise, but no, i wont concede this one. I don't think you do get what I am saying.

Also, it doesn’t make it ‘stronger’, it makes it ‘stiffer’, two separate engineering definitions. But how much stiffer….that is for Brent to supply the answer, as HE made this claim, no one else.

Stiffer in the longitudinal direction, but if the ends aren't capped (think like an aluminum can, ie traverse bulkheads) The skin is very thin relative to the enclosed volume (like an aluminum can) and is pretty easy to collapse, or for that matter buckle (like an aluminum can). True it is pretty rigid end to end though (until it fails critically)

Similarly, at 30 feet the boat may "feel rigid enough" but Brent has no engineering to back it up. At 60 feet though, even the bow to stern flexion is going to star acting more like a rubber hose than a solid pipe without the internal frames to prevent the deformation of the skin (think like a hose starting to crimp where the inside edge bows inward and the sides are forced out).

Sure, you could say... but what if I increased the thickness of the walls. Well unfortunately your weight is going to go up like a fat pig in a pile of slop because the internal volume goes up as the the cube if you assume you maintain the boats proportions). Unfortunately the cross-section only goes up as the square. So if you doubled the length, you would need 4 times the metal to maintain the same dimensions, but you would only have half of the strength.

You can continue this sort of math ad-nauseam, double the length, keep the same beam, double the metal thickness, and now you lose the dimensional rigidity do to a smaller cross-section. So now you are about half as stiff as you were before bow to stern.

Sure, transverse frames and bulkheads do not remove this physics problem, but as a function of weight (ie cost) vs internal volume, length, beam, any other metric you want, the properly framed structure will be stronger.

[SheetWise]

Ad Hoc, Bearflag, et al --

We are here for the truth -- as apparent or elusive it might be.

I simply suggest that people not discover the truth in whatever confirms their preconceived beliefs.

If you believe your opponent is a pig, don't turn your arena into a mud-pit.

I understand Brent is not responding -- and may not have the capability to respond in the way you like -- but if the opponents were less adversarial and Brent had less hubris, it seems that these issues could be resolved for everyone.

If, If ...

[bearflag]

Originally Posted by SheetWise

Ad Hoc, Bearflag, et al --

We are here for the truth -- as apparent or elusive it might be.

I simply suggest that people not discover the truth in whatever confirms their preconceived beliefs.

If you believe your opponent is a pig, don't turn your arena into a mud-pit.

I understand Brent is not responding -- and may not have the capability to respond in the way you like -- but if the opponents were less adversarial and Brent had less hubris, it seems that these issues could be resolved for everyone.

If, If ...

Read the thread, in the "Class Societies" board.

In one of my posts i used the very same word "hubris". And that is exactly what it is.

Everyone (or near everyone) even the most acrid (Probably Richard) has offered to help Brent up his game at many points. But Brent's pride and self-proselytizing has him in a jumble.

I've made the argument that brent needs to continue to make his counter arguments, and I hope he does. because I am hoping that if we collectively beat him over the head enough times, some of the information will stick. And it will be better business for him, and safer and cheaper boats for his customers.

[SheetWise]

Originally Posted by bearflag

I've made the argument that brent needs to continue to make his counter arguments, and I hope he does. because I am hoping that if we collectively beat him over the head enough times, some of the information will stick. And it will be better business for him, and safer and cheaper boats for his customers.

I agree with your sentiment, and also hope information will stick. I just hope that information is not "tradition" --

I worked with precision machinery in printing starting in the early 80's -- and the gold standard was Heidelberg, which could print about 5k hr with a precision of +-.002 -- these presses were built like battleships. Then came the Komoris and Lithrones from Japan that could print 14k hr with precision +-.001 and had 1/3 the weight. It was engineering. Oftentimes weight was just a substitute for knowledge. I realize that stationary machines don't have the stresses demanded of marine equipment -- but we shouldn't discount innovation whether it comes from an engineer or not.

I'm not taking a side in this pissing contest -- I'm just saying that both sides might want to consider that the other side has points. That at least allows both sides to explore the issues, discuss them rationally, and determine what the limits of human knowledge are.

From what I'm currently reading, NEITHER side is participating in that process.

Edit: And yes, I have read the other thread. Brent needs to pony up, and his detractors need to do some independent evaluations.

[bearflag]

Originally Posted by SheetWise

I agree with your sentiment, and also hope information will stick. I just hope that information is not "tradition" --

I worked with precision machinery in printing starting in the early 80's -- and the gold standard was Heidelberg, which could print about 5k hr with a precision of +-.002 -- these presses were built like battleships. Then came the Komoris and Lithrones from Japan that could print 14k hr with precision +-.001 and had 1/3 the weight. It was engineering. Oftentimes weight was just a substitute for knowledge. I realize that stationary machines don't have the stresses demanded of marine equipment -- but we shouldn't discount innovation whether it comes from an engineer or not.

I'm not taking a side in this pissing contest -- I'm just saying that both sides might want to consider that the other side has points. That at least allows both sides to explore the issues, discuss them rationally, and determine what the limits of human knowledge are.

From what I'm currently reading, NEITHER side is participating in that process.

I think if you read more, you will find out some of the people here are fairly unorthodox thinkers.

Richard/Apex1 proposed a Hardwood/Softwood/Hardwood epoxy based sandwich laminate in lieu of foam core composites.

I am conducting research on using GLARE (Glass Reinforced Laminate Aluminum Epoxy), which would be much much thinner and lighter than steel, but would need extensive formed channels and internal geometry (like an airplane wing).

There are other methods like the Cutts Patent Method, Lindsay Loyd's method. And countless variations in steel and aluminum framed construction. Ridgid, semi-rigid, controlled flex.

There are academic papers about variations of framing such as having less bulkheads but increasign there cross-sections. Or having a honeycomb on the skin with another skin on top of it making a monocoque sandwich (similar methods ideas can be used in wood, glass and metal).

People have done, diagonal, and transverse framing.

The biggest thing we (or specifically me, most likely because I am a physicist by education). Is that you can design any sort of fangled thing ever, but anything you do must be consistent with physical reality.

Marketing it as such doesn't make it so.

If you have discovered some great technique outside the common building practices that is great, more power to that. That is to be encouraged.

But because it is outside the Classes and techniques, you better be able to prove why yours is just as good or better, and it can't be smoke and mirrors.

When someone follows the common practices in an industry, assuming the craftsmanship is good, it is a pretty reasonable statement to say the boat is safe. If you don't follow them, it "may" be safe, but only a comprehensive engineering process could determine that.

Guesswork isn't wrong all the time, sometimes you just get lucky.

My biggest grime is that most of Brent's claims aren't even a function of Naval Engineering and Architecture. But of physics, mechanics, and material science.

Using his own words to establish a basis for engineering anything, is just guesswork based on some faulty understanding of some key physical realities.

So, yeah, referencing back to a previous post...

We are not debating two competing and reasonable alternatives.

We are debating Fantasy and Reality.