Realistic scantilings

Wow, did you ever add some to this post when you edited it!!

Well, in order to make this as short as possible, I will keep my responses to your rehash as short as possible, although I'll "keep" everything you say - I don't want someone to suggest I was being "selective" (seeing as I'm that proverbial journo …).

I'm glad you at least recognise there's an upper limit. That at least is a step in the right direction.
The latter part of the statement, however, is simply not true. Even if it's true that "hundreds" of your boats went around the world, that does not mean they're inherently seaworthy. How many times does one have to say that before it seeps in?

Actually, I'm not just "suggesting" it's not structural analysis, I'm concluding by way of reasoning, that anecdotal evidence does not amount to any form of real, scientific evidence. Not to mention that even your anecdotal evidence is coming from the builder of the boats, the seller, if you will, and as such (being the journo I am at heart) is something to be critical of, since you have everything to gain by pretending your boats are the end-all to strength and seaworthiness.

Really? Show us some proof of your anecdotal evidence, and when you have done that, show os some real analysis.
What I find the most worrying about your way of providing "proof" is that you let the builder-com-sailors test whether they're seaworthy and strong. Otherwise you would have done some calculations. No, instead you let people stake their life at this, and if it works, you can sell a few more. However, I have to make a point here again, that your anecdotes are simply just anecdotes, and so far, they have proven to be nothing more than part of a sales pitch.

You obviously didn't read all the preceding posts. Go read Joshua Slocum. As I said, anecdotes does not mean anything is proven. Just that it is a possiblity.

See above.

Not at all. Please refrain from the ill-thought strawman argumentation. It doesn't suit someone who's trying to sell designs that people are expected to trust their family's lifes to.

Strawman again. And as of yet, you're still well into the anecdote-part.

See above. Especially with regards to strawman argumentation.

Sigh!

Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

See above. You might learn something.

Ah, yes. What a "clever" way of circumventing providing anything solid to all your claims about how many were sold and sailed around the world.

Oh, I see. By the same argument, the more people have read your book, the more it must be true. I guess that's why so many people believe in scientology and so many other Spaghetti monsters

Personally I don't (I wasn't the one stating anything about those things as I don't know about things like that), however, I do notice that once again you're making use of your favourite argumentation form: The everlasting strawman. The thing is, you misread, misinterpret and misrepresant everything we say, all in order to make your own arguments look like real, valid arguments. Guess what, they aren't and never will be. Prove your point by way of facts, instead of this ridiculous show.

The funny part is that not only are you making use of the strawman argumentation, but you actually use it to come to the conclusion that ends in an ad hominem. Now, there's the sign of someone who has no facts, but is thinking that by lashing out, people might think you have proven your point.

Yes, but with your guess work, we would need to pay a real naval architect to do that for us, wouldn't we? Or are you suggesting, that we should just put in structural members at random in order to even out your dislike of and discomfort with math and proper analysis?

We're questioning the strength if a boat built like that gets too big.

No, you're saying outright that naval architects still think they're building in wood and that "ancient" structural members are obsolete. That your method of building is stronger than that method. That your method is so much better. Yet you provide no analysis, no nothing. Hell, you can't even make a coherent argument, presenting your case.

Pot, kettle, anyone?

It's frightening you're aware of the problem with putting words in other people's respective mouths, yet you're the only one doing it. But then again, I simply think it's another stab at that strawman-streak you entered into long ago.

Not at all. We have explained that numerous times to you. The methods and analysis are constantly improved, yet you seem determined to pretend they're not. You're worse than those people claiming the world is 6000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. For further explanation see above. Or, if so inclined, I suggest you read the thread again, beginning at page one, post one.

Besides some small details I disagree on (but I'm no naval architect, so I'll let that go untouched), let's say that is exactly right and spot on, and there's nothing more to it, that does NOT in any way, form, or fashion mean you can make the logical leap and then declare frames unnecessary, simply because you're going thicker in the plate. That's simply ignorance at a professional level, if you ask me (which you didn't, but I'm a believer in free advice).

Besides the ridiculously sales-man tactics presented here (again with no evidence, not even of the anecdotal kind), there's absolutely no relevance in that statement. But even if it would have been the truth, because a boat sails fast have nothing to do with whether it's build strong enough. One might even say, that a lighter boat will go faster, and thus (by your argumentation) the lighter and thus faster a boat is, the stronger and more seaworthy it must be.

I hope you're not serious, or suggesting that we argue something like that?

You're seriously beginning to make a fool of yourself, what with all that salesman tactics. Show us some proof instead. But, again, this is not about how many boats are sold. Bayliner sells a whole lot of boats, yet I wouldn't cross an ocean in one. Optimist dinghies sell in huge numbers, yet that doesn't prove them to be worthy for the big ocean. As I've explained earlier, you're trying to use the McDonald's argument, and you're not even doing it well the way you just make claims.

Frankly, by now you must know that your anecdotal evidence is worthless. And your ad hominems at well-respected naval architects are nothing more than infantile.

Ah, yes. We normal people call that getting send a recipe and a shopping list. Analysis is what we're talking about, not how mani square meters of steel one is to use and how to stretch it into shape. By email, you say? So, I take it you send them the analysis if they ask for it? Come now, let us mere mortals see it too.

Ah, yes, being able to slap something together quickly certainly proves that the designs by extension must be strong and seaworthy.

Strawman. We're not saying it wont work. We're saying that there's a limit to the size where this should be trusted. We're saying that you claims that this is stronger than proper analysed boatbuilding is marketing speak and ask you to provide the proof.

Well, you're not very imaginative then. You see, just because I once (on my bicycle) slammed head-on into a car, while I was going 30 miles and hour and the front fork survived unscathed, doesn't mean it will next time I hit something. As a matter of fact, the next bike I bought (same model, as the first one got stolen) had both the frame and fork bent from me falling on a straight piece of asphalt with a kerb to the right. You being selective and choosing the first version, and then pretending it's strong enough for anything out there is simply ignorant. And "foolish", if you will.

Yes, you're absolutelitydoodeley right. We should all shun analysis and scientific method and go back to guesswork and ignorance. I mean, them damn snakeoil salesman are trying to say the world is round and we revolve around the sun! Sheesh!. Sorry, but the only snakeoiler here is you, Brent.

Only people who believe anything they hear, without bother demanding proof are gullible. It seems you're catering to gullible people. Btw, did you know that the word gullible is not in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000?

See above.

Read the thread, not to mention this post.

It doesn't matter HOW much you take per sold design or per sold book. You're the seller, and as such, demanding you provide proof of your claims is basic stuff. Even for numbnuts.

Noone is saying that at all.

Ah, yes, my heart go out to them. Because that is what naval architects do

Yes, it does suggest you have had success in selling your ideas. Just like Ron L. Hubbard has had succes with selling his ideas. Succes is not proof of your products being better than any other, and it's certainly not proof of anything you have said so far.

Good for you, but the thing is, analysis and scientific method is not "numbers on some banker's computer".

Ah, yes. It's a conspiracy. You know, just like all the scientists in the world conspire in order to keep the public thinking the earth is round, but it's really flat, and that global warming is not here, but they're only out to get the oil companies.
Please. Grow. the. ****. up.

 

Wow, I feel like I just read a preachers speech.

Danish bagger, as a journalist you disappoint me . Have you not researched Brents books title? Having done so you would of at least given him some credit for it.

"How To Build a Better Steel Boat: A Heretic's Guide"

Heretic:A heretic is a person who expresses or acts on opinions considered to be heresy.

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

 

Haha, I know it's quite long

But the thing is, we have all been there, trying to reason with him, showing him how one cannot simply dismiss analysis and scientific method and so on. Yet, he chooses to rehash the entire thread, adding strawman argumentation and whatnot, apparently thinking that by making it long enough and incoherent enough, people would somehow succumb to the strong arguments he's presenting

I actually hadn't researched the title. Disappointingly enough. However, I did mention early on, why I chose not to. Heretic, lol. Yup, if one cannot argue properly, one can always just make unfounded claims, suggesting anything is "just better", you just have to believe it, then it will be all clear.

I can't help but think of that other thread - sigh …

Oh, btw, did you see the link I made to the American Heritage dictionary? Just saying, you'll never know when you'll need that information.

 

OH no,no, I meant Brents post made me think of a preachers speech. Not even because of the length, it's the rhythm and the intensity of his text reminds me a preacher. He almost manages to make me feel guilty of building the boat I actually dreamed of rather than one of his.
Your replies are quite entertaining and often culturally instructive.

 

Thanks M. It's much appreciated

I still think my "funny" with the dictionary is good fun if used towards the likes of Brent and that "designer" who could circumvent drag and point pressure with javelins.


Btw. What do you mean by "culturally instructive"? Am I showing my colours that clearly, poor pseudo-translations, or something else (or all)?

 

DB,
I don't mean cultural as "foreign culture" but as "general culture". The same as Mikes arguments are technically very interesting I would say your argumentation (or rhetoric) is culturally interesting, and adding to my general culture. I had never heard of the straw man argument or put a name on the Macdonald one ect... It's not all that easy to pin a good from a bad argument and mostly explain why it is such, but it is a necessary skill these days to survive politicians and journalists . I'm keeping notes of your methods, that's what I mean about adding to my general culture. :idea:
English is my second language as well, I think it's the case of many on this forum.

Cheers,
Murielle

 

haha, Yeah damn journalists. The only group of people less trustworthy than journalists are politicians if you ask people (as in a survey). Yet, they still go "it's true! I saw it on the news/read it in the paper!". That's food for thought, methinks.

Seriously though, never thought of it the "instructive"-part that way. I'm glad I can somehow "help", though.

If you really want to, there's a shitload of books about argumentation (logic) , and especially fallacies out there. The net is of course easier and quicker, but I like books for things like this.

Also, another great thing is the "Reductio ad Absurdum", which isn't (as many people think) whenever someone makes something absurd. I sometimes call them analogies, as that is how I use analogies in a debate. It's a way of showing (if done properly) that if an argument doesn't hold water in the absurd situation, then it doesn't hold water in the context we're discussing, because you cannot use a statement, an argument, as one thing in one context, and another thing in another context. In other words, an argument cannot be valid if it's only true under _some_ circumstances. Therefore, if we reduce the argument "ad absurdum" we will show the opponent (hopefully)that his arguments/assumptions/premises aren't valid, and thus his conclusion must be wrong, or at least unfounded. I usually go "with that argument you can defend XXX" or some sort. Because it can.
It only proves though, that the argument itself is wrong. Even a blind man can hit the spot. So the conlusion might be dead on, it's just an unfounded one.

Sorry, that was way more than you wanted, but that's why I use my irritating "absurd" analogies constantly.

It's your second language too? What do you speak when not roaming BD, then?

Heh! I jsut discovered it says Ottawa, so my bet would be french. Sheesh! I need some sleep now (working tonight).

 

French

 

Yeah, I'm horrendously tired. I'm off to bed now. Sleep tight when you get that far.

 

Murielle,

Just before I go, I found a good list of typical fallacies:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

And the "McDonald's argument"?

It's this one:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

Hey Danish (Andre) Murrielle

Great lesson thanks . I agree Murielle, Brent is a faith based prophet who produces sermons and refers to 'the book'.

If it is any consolation that you built your dinosaur way too strong (according to Brent) I would rather be in your 50 footer (beaut boat by the way) in a crisis than in one of Brents more questionable designs (read bigger scaled up versions of his smaller ones).

Wynand put it well saying that Brents designs appeal to the hillbillies. I think they find a kindred spirit in Brents anti establishment anti education .

Some of his boats look awful out of the water too the interface between the chine and the bent plate is a real eyesore in some of the pictures I have seen.

They do look good in the water. They also appear to sail on their ear a bit, look at Utube and search for 'Brent Swain'

The engineers question Brent . In return Brent tries to make engineers look like fools through all sorts of nonsense reasoning about space shuttle crashes and bumble bees. He never addresses any of the real issues and boy that Nizkor website looks like his posts on everything. Now I know what a straw man is too. Thanks Andre

Unfortunate initials for a charismatic heretic .

 

No problem

 

Well I guess I'm a hillbilly so I figured I would give ya a picture of my ugly origami 26 "Brent Swain 26". This is from about a year ago, notice the homemade hillbilly sandblaster! Ive heard a lot of comment about her,never any about being ugly, unsafe, or its a hillbilly boat.
Thanks Guys
Tom

 

Tom,

I find very unfortunate that this thread has come down to some insult to BS boat builders. I was worried this was going to degenerate such way and tried to warn Brent about his manners, his tendency to post derogatory opinions which naturally leads to equivalent responses.

You seem to be doing a very nice job with your boat and I hope you will get much enjoyment out of it, both during the building process and in the water. I would be lying if I said I like the shapes of the origami boats, I don't, but there are also a lot of other boat that don't meet my personal beauty standards. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I wouldn't ask everyone to like my own hull. Beauty also not all about shape and I can appreciate ones workmanship and effort in building his own boat. From that perspective your boat seems like a nice piece of work. (I envy your sandblaster pot)
As I have been exchanging here with the "bad kids" I want to apologize about the insult.

I will remind you though that Brent has attacked our boats as dinosaurs, our methods as horse carriages technology, our knowledge and skills as those of "snake oil salesment" and I'm most likely missing many insults as there are so many.
That said, I am again sorry you were qualified of hillbilly consequently to be building a BS boat, that was wrong.

Cheers,
Murielle

 

Well, it all does dave a mediaeval 'religious' feel to it, doesn't it? But I think we may have the context and characters confused. It is possible that Mr Swain is more copernican than people think and is only a heretic if you believe that the ABS guidelines (or Lloyds, ISO, etc) for the construction of steel boats contains the one true path to everything that is holy about metal boat building.

Well, this may be the case, but let's not forget what the rationale for these guidelines really is. They DO NOT represent the latest findings of cutting edge research, but rather are a conservative view of how insurance companies can be confident that the vessels they cover (or with the latter day ISO standards - boats that people buy) do not represent an undue risk. Although they may contain calculations, and some approaches in the more contemporary volumes may be based on engineering principals, they have all been formulated to produce boats that have been proven to work by empirical observation. That is, we know something to be safe because it has been in satisfactory service for X number of years, so let's write a process that will replicate this known safe option.

It's this empirical observation that has been at the very heart of the development of these rules, and still is the only irrefutable component in the development of our structural knowledge. For instance, despite efforts to analyze the stresses and structures in keels over the past decade, it's through observation that, despite all the work that has been done, it's painfully obvious that something is not right with them at the moment. Too many are falling off. It's no good screaming 'it's built to ABS' or 'these calculations prove it's strong enough' when the keel is on the sea floor and the boat is inverted. It makes you look like some papal bigwig telling Copernicus that it doesn't matter what he sees, the bible and the greatest scholars in the known (christian) world, say it's not true.

So if I still had any interest in steel boats I would be fascinated by the work of Mr Swain. With a little bit of checking, we could establish whether he does in fact have real, observable, verifiable evidence that scantlings other than those prescribed by the various authorities, have proved satisfactory in service. If so we could have here a great opportunity to revise our scantling requirements in exactly the same way that almost every change has been made to them in the past: that is we have evidence that something has given satisfactory service.

I know Charles Whittolz did a lot of work on steel boats without transverse frames in the early 80's, all of which are still sailing around. We didn't pursue it because it was felt that the sort of weight saving we were after, could more easily (in research and development time) be gained by the use of composites or by using aluminium decks, cabin houses and cockpits.

We will only make progress if we DON'T merely repeat the work of our fathers. We need to innovate, and empirical observation of what works and what doesn't is still key to this process. Embodying what we learn into rules and prescriptions comes way later. That's why there has been a real effort to not be too prescriptive when developing the new ISO scantling rule. Otherwise we will never have any new boatbuilding methods evolve until someone writes it down. The development of GRP and wood/epoxy didn't wait for the rules to be written. The rules were written in light of the boats that had proved satisfactory in service. We mustn't block such innovation in the future.