Origami steel yacht construction

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

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/classification/transverse-frame-calculation-32584.html

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

 

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.

 

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:

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.

 

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...

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 ...

 

Hubris

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.

 

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.

 

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.