Transverse frame calculation

When you are trying to stop the distance between the chine and the cabinside from separating, the strongest, quickest and simplist,way is to connect them directly, not by taking the scenic route via the hull deck joint.
My boat is 26 years old built from scrounged material. She cost me $6,000 to get sailing. Nothing but the sails and sheet have worn out yet.My cleats , deck hardware , self steering , inside steering, anchor winch blocks, lifelines , handrails, bow roller, etc etc are good for 400 years . After that I'll let the next owner worry about it. It is the covers of bunks that wear out . My carpet is good for my lifetime and my back will last a lot longer than it was ever able to do sleeping on foam.
I've never had problem with thru hulls in nearly 40 years of welding ss pipe nipples in. I have seen your "Approved " plastic thru hulls on 'Approved " boats. In fact I kicked one out with a light kick this past winter. Had it been the even more "Approved " Marlon, it would have taken a single swing with a hammer. Cant do that with welded in stainless ones with a stainless ball valve on.
I just fell over the" Approved " lifelines on a Sparkman and Stephens design, about knee high, well below your centre of gravity , unless you are a midget, plastic coated stainless, guaranteeing crevice corrosion. The only thing they guarantee is hitting the water head first ,which is why I assume those great fans of everything "approved"wear those expensive bright yellow sailing boots, so you can see their feet as they go over. Or is it so you can see their feet when they are up to their necks in seawater? My fully welded sch 40 SS pipe, 34 inches off the decks, would never be "Approved"
I can kick their "Approved " teak hatches open with a single kick, and do the same with their "Approved " handrails. Can't do that with my welded down stainless handrails or aluminium hatches.
When I first headed for the South Pacific singlehanded, at the ripe old age of 23, I saw many people who had taken your advice,and waited until they could afford everything new. They were mostly in their sixties. As I pointed out in my book, you can judge the value of any advice by taking critical look at what it has done for the person offering it.
Id didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if I did things their way , I'd be much older before I got off the treadmill. So you say I should be doing things the way that has put guys like you on the treadmill for most of your lives?
So what are you going to do now? Buy all those lost years back?
Having been semi retired since my mid 20's ,I'll think about that while I lie in bed in a peaceful anchorage in the mornings, as long as I please, listening to the traffic report and think of all those lucky guys waiting in a smoggy lineup, going to a job they hate, to kiss the *** of a boss they hate, mislead by your advice to "Be re reasonable and do it the hard way."

Weak boats don't survive 16 days of pounding on a Baja lee shore in huge surf . Weak boats don't survive pounding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef in huge surf undamaged. Weak boats don't survive a collision with a freighter, or a steel barge at hull speed. Weak boats don't survive a single season passage thru the NW passage. Only strong boats survive all this, stock ' "Approved" fibreglass boats don't.
m
My boas HAVE been tested, in far more relevant tests than anything you could do, far beyond most of the steel boats out there.

The fact that you "DON"T GET IT doesn't mean it won't work. It simply means you "DON"T GET IT".
This is aimed at the wiser followers of this thread. The ones who "Don't get it' are beyond hope.

 

How much harder is it to compress a 2 inch sch 40 pipe 4 ft long on end that to simply bend a 2 inch flat bar frame ,by pushing on their inboard ends?
How much quicker is it to fit a couple of pieces of pipes in per side than to make up and fit a dozen frames? How much simpler? If you are too dense to figure out which is stronger, quicker , or simpler ,then ask your kindergarten teacher.

 

Shopping is sport, and pleasure, not work. That is why I never charge for scrapyard time.

 

The question posed was:

That is the question we need YOU to answer. HOW MUCH..??...10%..or 20%, for example? Because YOU say it is stronger, we want to know HOW MUCH??

As you so eloquently put it:

One can only conclude you "don't get it", because you cannot provide the anwser to your own question.

But as always, rather than answer the question, because you cannot (or don't get it), it is just another throw away remark without any understanding, preaching to those that do not know any better than you, your customers.

Because, again, you said:

So, you are saying the deck is prevented from buckling UPWARDS, by the support of the pipes. What does buckling UPWARDS mean????…that sounds like bending to me.

But now, yet again, another misdirection, you are trying to say these pipes are bucking, not bending, by stating it is much harder it is to compress them.

So, lets take your second misdirection...again, HOW MUCH does it take to compress a 2 inch pipe to a 2 inch FB....please reply with a structural answer, rather than just words.

As for your last statement. Just shows how much contempt you have for anyone, anyone that questions you when you cannot provide an answer to a ‘throw away’ claim made by you, no matter who they are.

So, when one of your followers who knows nothing about structural analysis and fabrication, ie someone who has just bought your book and needs advice of HOW MUCH STRONGER parts of structure are, or HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE to build, your reply to the customer is......

I must say, you do yourself proud there. It is no wonder these people struggle for years trying to build an inefficient and poor quality structure and fill it with cheap smelly second hand rubbish from a scrap heap, WOW, some dream. More like a nightmare!

 

Believe me implicitly or be damned..........................now I've heard that before somewhere from another priest.


What you seem to misunderstand is that there's nothing mutually exclusive. You can fit a quality hull out as a junk heap or a junk hull out as a penthouse. You can build safety rails as high and as strong as you like etc etc etc............ all that has nothing to do with what we are addressing here.

Your level of logical argument is poor. for example; you have seen a failed thru-hull and a low safety rail therefore class approved hull structure is also poor.

Certainly should convince the gullible novice. But that's not the audience here is it !

I notice you haven't addressed any observation or answered any question. What you seem to do very well is to make smoke whilst running around chanting the believe or be damned speech.

It's all very spiritual and almost funny by now, but it doesn't help you.


After looking at your latest "plans" for a 36 foot version I can say they are very poor designs structurally. They wouldn't get through any class survey without substantial re-design and additional framing.

The model will not scale safely and certainly not to 60 feet. That's what I hope you have realised by now. Your 36 footers may have survived but they are poorly framed and stiffened, you could do a lot better.

What was said a few posts back about your welding of the chines on a promo video sounds a bit poor. Those chine welds will be very prone to fatigue cracking over time, Particularly considering other aspects of the design.

That you have had problems with keels being driven up into the hull in such a small boat shows that you had a poor design. Might be a message here....

 

"Believe me implicitly or be damned..........................now I've heard that before somewhere from another priest."

I believe Al Gore said something like that.

 

So you are claiming that a 2 inch flatbar frame, taking the scenic route to the point it is trying to support, via the hull deck joint, is stronger that a 2 inch sch 40 pipe, four feet long taking the direct route? Doesn't take much math to see the obvious.
You are saying that a boat which can withstand 16 days of pounding on a Baja lee shore, t-boning a steel barge at 8 knots, colliding with a freighter , pounding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef , etc etc, is structurally weak? You claim that chine welds which have taken these torture tests with impunity and a 100% success rate, and have been cruising the world's oceans for 30 years , without a single failure, are prone to failure? You say that people should ignore these success rates, and instead pay guys like you to do things in a far more expensive and time and labour consuming way ( To put your bank accounts ahead of years of their lives)? Doesn't take much math to see that your arguements are total ********.
This kind of ******** promotion in the marine industry is al too common. Fewer and fewer people are buying it.common.
Changing the label on identical items to "Marine " and doubling the price doesn't make it any stronger.
People ask why marine items are so much more expensive than identical items in a hardware store or industrial supplier. The answer is simple. "SCAM" like the one you are trying to put over here.
Many people on this site are far wiser, and more resourceful than you give them credit for. They see a self interested scam by the "be reasonable and do it the hard way " promotors.

The fact that you "DON"T GET IT" doesn't mean it's wrong. It simply means you "DON"T GET IT"
Those who do get it are out cruising decades sooner, while the gullible keep paying scam artists.

 

Peers

Did I say he will N E V E R ever give up and say:

"I am familiar and comfortable with one material and method and I know that there are others as good and valuable"

N E V E R

he is insane to a unbelievable extend.

Sorry Brent, but you seriously are!

Richard

 

See, you cannot answer a simple question. It must be simple you asked it.

I’m asking you to show me your maths….you keep saying it is obvious.

It is obvious you cannot answer a simple question, even posed by yourself.

It is so obvious to anyone reading this thread that you have failed repeatedly at every opportunity to answer a direct question. So simple, so easy, so much stronger, so much cheaper…..all are claims and opinions by you, without a shred of factual evidence to support your claims. Every one has be refuted, yet like a self proclaimed messiah, you ignore them. That is fine. I think it is obvious to all now.

So, as always, because you cannot answer a simple question, which even by your own admission is simple and obvious, you resort to your usual MO of misdirection. Viz:

Please show me where I have said this?


So, again, back to reality. The reality of your poor preparation and joints which is shocking and no professionally accepted practice would endorse such poor quality methods.. Which, as Lyndon indicated, just emphasises the poor preparation and hence poor quality welding. As noted by the TWI into why welds crack:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/cl...se-frame-calculation-32584-17.html#post373624
(post # 244)

And examples given here:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/cl...se-frame-calculation-32584-13.html#post371243
(post #190)

So, yet again, lets address the evidence from the claim

So, you claim the chine welds do not fail. It is amazing what you can find on the origami web site. (The same old arguements too...same MO)
http://okopnik.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi


I found this gem:

-----Original Message-----
From: brentswain38 [mailto:brentswain38@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:52 PM
To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Welding Rods

Ted
It's not uncommon for the chine welds to crack as you are pulling
the hull together as they hinge a long way and change their angle
greatly as the hull is pulled together. The cure is to climb outside
the hull as soon as the chine begins to come off the ground and put 4
inch long welds with 6011 on the outside the chine. That way any
change in angle pulls away from the welds rather than toward them.
There is far less metal in the weld than in the plate with welding
on the inside only and any welding rod will tend to crack in this
situation.
This has no bearing on the adequacy of the weld strength in the...



So, there you have it. The chine welds crack when being pulled. These super strong super stiff super amazing it is obvious to anyone these welds and joints are perfect, crack during simple fabrication. The simple act of pulling into your compressive shape that you keep saying is so strong and nothing cracks.

If I were to pull those plates together with say, 100kg of force, not a lot, but enough to satisfy your “compression” philosophy, the amount of weld on a 6mm plate required to withstand this before failure is 1.2mm. Yup a poultry 1.2mm weld length. That is basically the size of a good quality tack weld, that is all that is needed to withstand the 100kg force. Yet this simple pull, cracked this weld. Which means either

1) The weld is poor quality, full of flaws.
Or
2) The weld is poor quality, full of flaws (needs repeating!)
or
3) The joint is poor quality, owing to the stress concentrations, which you claim do not exist.

So, the “small” force of pulling chines together, which is OBVIOUSLY much less than any slamming or puncture loads you keep going on about, cracks the welds.

As for the rest of it...

If those of you reading this thread wish to buy cheap plans, employ Brent for a cheap $100/ph, of which just the raw materials and Brent’s fee’s cost much more than you can buy a complete second hand boat ready to sail today, but still prefer to fill your boats with cheap smelly junk scrap, spend years completing and which will still costs more than you can buy second hand, as a dream…be my guest. Can’t say you haven’t been warned.

 

The irony in this passage is self evident to everyone by now. Even the spin doctoring is poor. Twisting some very serious observations that you should be addressing.

Your structural arguments were wrong, that's been shown. So you have to stop trying to convince gullible people that they can scale your design. That’s the main thing to accept as far as I’m concerned. You keep driving the discussion back to 21, 30, 36 foot boats so lets use them.

The 36 footer and certainly the 40 footer are weaker than they need to be to fit your paradigm. If you don't want to accept that then the offer is here to show you with a detailed (and usually expensive) analysis that is being offered for free. It's a more accurate calling of your bluff than the demolition derby you propose. Instead you do the sideways jump routine into a stinking swamp of deception.

The plans you sell ( which I now have) indicate a poor understanding of fatigue issues, some poor stress paths and a lack of plating support. To address that would add very little time (lets say four days more construction time ) and a few hundred dollars at the most. But your response is not to say .. OK lets look at this in detail and improve my design. It's this deceptive twisting that starts with "So your saying..............." followed by a downright dishonest falsehood. Then your implication that anyone suggesting it be done properly is a scam artist.

Any of us ‘scam artists’ would have required that the keels on your design be framed so that they didn't rotate back into the hull so easily on grounding. Had we made that suggestion, your response would have been predictable. It took actual damage to get through to you that your design was weak. So you added some framing in later plan revisions. That's your approach.

The professional approach incorporates some risk analysis and critical design flaws are weeded out before the boat hits the water. The idea is that the people aboard are not at unnecessary risk. It's not their place (for example) to find out for you that the hull collapses when submerged to 3 feet. Or fatigue induced through unnecessarily poor detailing requires re-welding and retrofitted structure long after the boat is built.

None of this adds much time or money at all and can still be done by you or your clients.

You just shoot yourself in the foot with these responses.

 

..........
It's not uncommon for the chine welds to crack as you are pulling
the hull together as they hinge a long way and change their angle
greatly as the hull is pulled together. The cure is to climb outside
the hull as soon as the chine begins to come off the ground and put 4
inch long welds with 6011 on the outside the chine. That way any
change in angle pulls away from the welds rather than toward them.
There is far less metal in the weld than in the plate with welding
on the inside only and any welding rod will tend to crack in this
situation.
This has no bearing on the adequacy of the weld strength in the...

........................


So they do crack with one major stress cycle

 

Mike and Ad Hoc, you've lowered the merit of your arguments by attacking this
so called 'chine cracking'.

As it clearly states, the seams are only welded on the inside without full penetration welds when the plates are folded up together. The loads during the folding process are also completely unknown, but it's certain they bear no resemblance to the loads when the hull is in service.

If the thrust of your argument with this guy is incomplete analysis and unscientific argument, it's probably best not to use the same tactics yourselves.

 

Brent your arguments seem to be centered around bending loads. Since there are boats built with few longitudinals and many traverse frames your argument for curves and the likes for bending and twisting loads seem to hold water. What I have not seen you address yet, including in the above examples, is buckling loads. I have not seen one hint in all of your posts that you even realize what a buckling load is. Its conceivable that none of your boats have really bin subjected to such a load yet.

 

Hence note the wink

But it does illustrate very well that discontinuities existing cracks and excessive stress in welds are likely to be present and they are all abysmal properties for a chine weld that acts as a line of support.
In this case they apparently crack from the side wracking as it's pulled together. I think John's (Ad Hoc) thrust here is to challenge Brent's prior assertions that his welds are as strong as the parent metal. So the illustration is that if there's a 5mm bead on 5mm plate why does it crack so easily rather than simply bending.
Of course the answer is that the weld is more brittle and contains irregularities and impurities. I guess that's the lesson there that John was trying to get Brent to accept.

If that were being built to class it would all be gouged out and re-welded in sections after the hull is joined to ensure the welds were not compromised and set up with high internal stresses.

Not sure anything can lower the merit of the previously stated facts of the case though. It's not a matter of opinions there but demonstrable facts. The argument was pretty clearly put long before about structure.

But everything is up for open discussion. Forums are like that, they can be very inconvenient for people who make unsupportable claims

 

Exactly.

If the welds are so strong, the simple act of pulling should not affect “sound” welds. All this does, as noted several times. It is just poor quality in the entire sense of the word, from design through to fabrication. To think it is anything else, just underlines the lack of skills and knowledge in the design and build of boats and dismissing as “not worthy to respond” when good honest people put their lives in your hands!

If it were being built to Class, any preload is not acceptable. The plates must be free from any internal loads and the gaps must be according to the joint and thickness. Any restraint or forcing of a plate into place is not acceptable.

Also, to ignore the reasons for the constant cracking, suggests lack of knowledge and appreciation of shipbuilding and design, and their implications.

Finally, there is no attempt to ensure quality, period. If a weld has cracked, one must dye-pen the region to ascertain the full extent of the crack. This advice was not given. Without doing so, any rewelding does not address the underlying cause and it does not ensure the now permanent flaw in the weld, the crack, has been removed from the weld and/or plate. Any designer would investigate the causes and ensure the cracking is not an uncommon occurrence, but a never occurs again.

Anyone can make claims, anyone can have an opinion. But stating an opinion or claim as fact when it is clearly demonstrated to be contrary, by endless independent evidence engineering theory and practice and world wide intuitions and standards of acceptance, suggest that it is simply that, an opinion and nothing more, and not a qualitative verifiable independently supported assertion.

When it becomes that, my dog is bigger than yours….