Hull series data

[TANSL]

@DCockey, with all due respect and appreciation, I am not going to discuss the definitions that the technicians give in their papers. The only thing I have discussed so far is the definition you gave, which is not correct. I have not dared to give a categorical definition of what the planing area is because I am not clear about that area. It is possible that the experts who have studied these topics have considered different Ap, I do not know either but I repeat, I am not able to discuss the definitions given by the books. The truth is that I have not managed to find a picture that clearly defines what each one considers as planin area.
Cheers.

 

[DCockey]

@DCockey, with all due respect and appreciation, I am not going to discuss the definitions that the technicians give in their papers. The only thing I have discussed so far is the definition you gave, which is not correct. I have not dared to give a categorical definition of what the planing area is because I am not clear about that area. It is possible that the experts who have studied these topics have considered different Ap, I do not know either but I repeat, I am not able to discuss the definitions given by the books. The truth is that I have not managed to find a picture that clearly defines what each one considers as planin area.
Cheers.

The original inquiry about Ap in post #7 was about the definition used in a paper, not about what "planing area" might mean in general. How is the definition I gave in the context of the inquiry about Ap as used in the paper not correct?

 

[TANSL]

I think we have both already said everything we knew and that we only repeat what was previously said. Respectfully, excuse me if I do not continue with this. I am no longer able to contribute anything new to the discussion.

 

[Angélique]

I think we have both already said everything we knew . . . .

I think this only goes for yourself, and not for the one you were debating with.

. . . . excuse me if I do not continue with this. I am no longer able to contribute anything new to the discussion.

Even though you didn't answer a single one of my questions to you, as far as I'm concerned your excuses have been accepted, since from your above info I've learned you don't know anymore about this matter, so you'll be excused to leave the parlour.

Fare well TANSL, please keep on reading new contributions to this interesting discussion, and welcome to the next debate.

 

[DMacPherson]

I am sure that I will regret getting involved, but hopefully I can shed some light on the subject. The orthodoxy that people hold onto is really a bit absurd...

In short, all are correct and none are correct - if you try to debate the term "planing area". It is simply a matter of two different data items sometimes called by the same term. Let me use different terms: "wetted planing surface area" (like #3 or #4 in an earlier post, depending on purpose) and "projected planing bottom area" (exactly like #1). As previously (and correctly) mentioned, PPBA is a projected parametric attribute used to characterize the shape of the bottom between the full extent of the chines. It is an unfortunate parameter because it really has nothing to do with the actual WPSA, but it has been used by the authors and researchers of the Series 62, so we have to live with it as part of the information of the series. The real trimmed WPSA, of course, has nothing to so with the PPBA. I didn't make up the terms; I just use them in their appropriate historical context...

 

[TANSL]

DMacPherson, thank you very much for your explanations.