Origami steel yacht construction

What is dangerous about how to build boats that have cruised 30 years and hundreds of thousands of miles without a single structural failure at sea, unless you are talking about "dangerous" to the incomes of those who make a simple boatbuilding project into a lucrative empire building carreer for some builders and designers, costing many their cruising dreams or years of their lives. If that is what I threaten, I'm proud..

 

Depends what you mean by “information”.

Grade A steel has a design yield stress of 235 MPa.
The CB of a boat is the LxBxTxDensity
The speed of light “C” is a constant
And so on…

This is information. BUT, these are also known facts, absolute facts. Absolute in the sense of, facts which are irrefutable anywhere in the scientific world and text book any university etc.

So, therefore, you need to understand the difference between a “fact” and “information”.

“Information” on the other hand contains personal and hence subjective data. It can also be totally incorrect as well as being completely correct. Thus how to know the difference? “information” that is questionable MUST be supported by independent evidence, otherwise it is just a claim and must be flagged up as such, hence it is not an absolute but an “opine” and the poster just refuses to accept the “label”; because they think/know their "information" is right and everyone else is wrong!

I am for anyone anywhere having the freedom to do and say what they like.

BUT, here is the caveat, within reason. And that “reason” is when absolute facts are twisted and ignored for self promotion/gain and constantly and consistently being told that such absolutes do not exist or just not worth knowing because they are bogus.

This explains a lot. This kind of response clearly indicates that you are not an engineer and do not understand what it is to be an “engineer”. You are more of a social scientist and have no respect for the known laws of the physical world, only the spoken word, in whatever format.

You are advocating that someone can come onto the forum and tell everyone the world is flat always has been flat and always will be and anyone that thinks otherwise is an idiot and anyone that tries to convince one otherwise is a liar.

Your sense of “let them have their say” falls down when absolutes are presented. Yet for some bizarre reason you prefer to allow any poster to make up nonsense and ignore the known physical and scientific world, because that is their “god given rite” (this is for emphasis as you are an American and this is the most often quoted rant when challenged as such), rather than being highlighted and corrected and bringing into line a poster making utter baseless and false claims. (This is where "information" is beneficial; from others providing the correct balance to an opine.)

Thus, you are actively prompting Faith-based science and engineering. This is totally anathema to any one who has an engineering and/or science background.

Is this the true heart of Boatforum….religion, not facts and solid engineering?

 

It will never end.............

........and we all know that.

You have forgotten to hammer on his poor spelling BS!

18. You accused me to employ underpaid labourers in a unsafe workshop

comment?

 

Quote from Brent

What is extremely dangerous is that you can't give an answer at a simple question.

You flatly insulted my integrity telling me I over charged my customer and now you can't even gave the simplest answer of the 101 yacht design?
You not over charge your customer, you scam them since you do not know the product you sell.

Since you can't substantiate ANY of your claims, you are cheater, a liar and a danger for the yachting community since you SELL your book and plans and you do not KNOW what you selling.

It is the reason why I have the right to call your bluff, to call you a cheater (you cheat on your claims) and a liar(you can't substantiate any of your claims)

You do not KNOW how to design a proper boat, and it is not because you were lucky for few boat, it will stay that way.

You do not know what is GM, you do not calculate weight estimate, you don't design boat, but you insulted all the yachting community and you continue on your laughable answer right above.

You proved again how your professional conscience in inexistent, and your post turns to the most perverted side of you, trying to play THE VICTIME.

You are pathetic, and it is not an insult, it the truth, just read your post above.
As for cruising a lot of good sailor cruise for thirty years. SO WHAT?

Your post on itself is so twisted, I can't believe.

Go away for good. Seriously

Daniel

 

The problem I see (with proposals such as deleting this thread) is that no other site moderator allows such dialogue to stand as a record. How do you expose Brent if you can't engage with him.

Brent Swain has now had his character and methodology exposed in the clear light of day, that's was worthwhile. Now people at least know who they are dealing with.

Unless the dialogue is here and on record on a public forum you cannot repeat or prove accusations that would put most potential clients off immediately. As it stands you can now say several things about Brent with impunity that would otherwise have landed you in a civil court for defamation.

I’d be interested in seeing just how this pans out in the future. Brent drives a cut and paste campaign endlessly dishing up the same material. I suspect that some of what’s gone down has actually filtered into his skull. We don’t hear about his book anymore, no more claims of the abysmal foolishness of transverse frames in boats to 60 feet, no more claims of the longitudinals being in compression.

All he has now is an argument based on curvature, but he’s unwilling to put it to the test since he knows it’s a dubious call. All this speaks volumes to anyone considering his little boats and would put a large experimental Brent Swain origami style boat sans framing off the menu for any sensible person.

Maybe we are actually getting through?

Is it worth wearing the insults and the personal attacks fom Brent to expose his fraud? So far I think it has been.

But lets not back people into corners, we don't want to lose valuable forum members over this.

Jeff
By the way I didn’t even know that the points system limited people ! It would be nice if we could take points away at the same rate we awarded them, up to the end of the positive balance. I’d also like to give more negatives without hitting someone so hard in that case. Like taking one point off rather than 10 off a new poster.

Perhaps stupidly with Brent I’ve given as well as taken away but I forget they don’t balance out. Or could we revoke prior positives?

 

The trouble is that the first time a vessel is lost due to design incompetence this argument fails. I've said to you before every aircraft every bridge and every boat is presumed to be safe until it fails.
At that point it becomes a poor unsafe design and the remaining structures are modified.
The whole process of rule based design based on statistical evidence is to stop this occurring. This is something you refuse to consider: that you may be endangering life through hubris.

 

::thumbsup::

::thumbsup::

 

For me, Mike Johns sums up the value of this thread in post #967.

If I understand correctly, what Jeff is saying, is that not enough members have given Brent negative rep. points to quiet him or to make the forum admin. feel that it is better to remove him than allow him to continue posting.

Up until recently I didn't use the rep. system much, unless giving positive points, because I believed that it was better to challenge someone's post in a responding post. I have, however, started to do so more often over the past few weeks. I still don't like it, though.

As Ad Hoc has pointed out, there has to be some point at which unsubstantiated claims are not allowed to continue, where one is required to put up proofs or shut up. While I have a very, very long way to go before I will be calling myself a designer, I have already learned that most of the things that have been asked of Brent's designs, he should be able to answer to without giving information that would allow someone to build his boats. In fact, I believe that any real designer would do so. But, I don't think that he can. Therefore, I don't think that he knows, or cares, how safe his boats are, as long as he can sell his plans, book and guidance.

 

You are not alone.

Way way wayyyyyyyyyyyy back before this thread was taken over, a simple very simple request to substantiate ones claim and hence the knowledge and professionalism of the poster:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/me...eel-yacht-construction-248-11.html#post381336

So simple, yet for some, impossible! Thus the only conclusion the poster hasn’t a clue what he's saying (just throwing words around), yet implies and claims as such. This is unprofessional by anyones standards.

Making claims is one thing, proving them is another!

Thus, if called into question, why allow repeated grandstanding when the proof has not been supplied? It must be flagged up as such….and not allowed to continue unless proven. Hence, as Mike notes, anyone can then make up their own minds, rather than read the same repeated and regurgitated nonsense on endless different threads.

 

Trying to discredit anyone on a forum is a waste of time as all that is said is soon forgotten but if it makes one feel good then by all means have at it

 

Unless Brent is planning to build a boat out of 12" steel tubing, I don't quite see the relevance of him making such a statement to begin with. It's just more obfuscation and moving of the target...another dishonest debating tactic.

It would be like me specifying rafter sizers without calculating the snow load, and when challenged saying, "What? Are you trying to claim that wood-framed roofs aren't strong enough to hold up snow?!? I guess you've never seen a wooden bridge."

I edited this after looking up your original post and finding the last sentence had been left out when you were quoted, by the way. I decided I was being unnecessarily snotty.

 

You misunderstand obviously what is discussed here.
No one is discredited. The one in question has used up any credit by himself. And refused any assistance to avoid that with rude replies.

 

This is a problem I've met several times: That which is blindingly obvious to the people well educated and trained in some field is just information contrary to a belief system for someone else. It seems to be rife in Naval Architecture. Then when you say ...er well that's not quite true.. You get attacked personally for not not being a believer no matter how many facts you supply.

But when it comes to the structural side of design there's no room for a belief system. It's an absolute with no grey areas. Either you have an adequate factor of safety and an uncompromised design or you don't.

If you claim a novel approach you need to be able to show that it works, not by anecdotal tales but by a thorough structural evaluation.

The hard part is getting that through to the believers who have ironically been sold the idea that engineering is con artistry. Brent runs a smear campaign with the Titanic, Bumble Bees, Challenger space shuttle disaster and other distractions. He does this to discredit the very science that questions his statements, a science that asks for verification of questionable statements.

Structural engineering is a hard factual repeatable applied science. This is something that we need to actually make some effort to get across. It's not sufficient to claim that "curvature adds massive strength" the engineers know how much it adds but Brent has no idea, his boat has some curves and it seems to work. That's the best you'll ever get from Brent. He certainly cannot tell anyone what his factor of safety or fatigue life of structure is.

 

I think you are forgetting search engines, and this site is surprisingly prominent in any search engine .