Transverse frame calculation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Landlubber
"40 footer which was going thru Georgeson pass at 15 knots over ground "

15 knots...really mate, that IS streeeeeettttttcccchhhhing it a bit.....what was the engine hp to do this speed...hull speed is about 8 knots, 15 is very unbelievable.....

The tide floods thru that pass at many knots. Common in BC waters . It flows thru Seymor narrows at up to 15 knots. Add 8 knots to that and you can hit a rock in a sailing vessel at 23 knots.
Call me a liar? This makes you a liar!

Brent, mate, simply because someone questions your doubtful statements does not make them a liar, please explain where I called you a liar...I did not, i simply questioned your statement...and from what I have seen so far, there is nothing to the contrary......

 

Oh dear, back to talking in circles again.

Er...are you saying when working with a "light material", one does not need to put 'structural material' where it is needed??

Can you please please define what you mean by a "heavy material".?

Back to the throw away comments again....

Ok, show me your maths to support this statement.

 

But you have no knowledge of where to put the material as your keel failures showed. After those failures you added material.


Here in your own words from another site:

So it you can't design from first principles and refuse to use class construction rules then all you have left is gut feeling.

You think gut feeling and ignorance are a good basis for design ?

All your anecdotes of 21 25 31 and 36 footers support your delusion that you have the structural understanding correct enough to produce 60 footers .

But you don't since you were showed clearly in this thread that you were deluded on just about every structural argument you used.

Now all you have left is to jump back into a stinking swamp of confusion distortion and spin.

Like shallow curves add phenomenal strength in shells.


Shouting Lies, ********, and torture tests prove it is just back to your old line protecting your job and your ego.

The only other line you have is to denigrate proper decent designers and builders.

How about answering a few of the direct questions for once properly.

 

Evan Shaler does a better job of the keel supports and puts in a whole floor, he apparently understands something called END FIXITY.

You end those frames short of meeting each other directly on thin plate and then on a weld seam.

So this is your chance to show him wrong..............

 

1000/875 is a fraction!

 

You are right. Your only problem is you dot know where the structural material goes. So you guess and put tube as you THINK they will do good.
The other engineering you let your clients to decide.
I hope you don't charge much, because you seams to be quite stingy on plans.
Well of course to design a full set, you have to know what you doing.
Poor Brent, you are sinking deep, more you post more you show your ignorance.
Alone in your boat, and nobody to listen to your delusional theories, that is not freedom, it's a nightmare.
Daniel

 

This one again? Georgeson Passage, between Mayne & Samuel Islands? Nope. Not 15 knots. Not 10 knots. I'd be surprised if it came near 4 knots. The closest pass that really runs is Boat Passage. Seymour Narrows, as with Dodds, Sansum, & First Narrows are called narrows for the obvious reason. Porlier Pass, at the top of Galiano, runs at about 9knots at it's worst(neep), almost lost a sailboat there. The three issues for Active pass for boaters are the fishing boats, ferry traffic & whirlpool(Galiano side, off Miners Bay). As I spent some time growing up on Galiano, with frequent visits to Mayne & The Penders and my family there dates back to my Great-grandfather, I have members of some of the old families on my facebook page(Including a couple of Georgesons'). If one goes to the Galiano Museum Archives & looks up the Georgeson collection, In viewing the collection, one will read about Georgeson Passage, as well as other local waters, as Scotty Georgeson was the first lighthouse keeper at Georgina Point(Active Pass).

The "T-boning a barge" incident took place in a completely different area. The two stories have become entangled, somehow.

 

Not somehow,

By Brent Swain!

Peers that will go on and on, lets finish the ****.

Brent,

I am willing to pay for a side by side building of two (proportional) similar vessels in steel. In Turkey. Same welders (have to switch in every shift), same place (my yard), same conditions.
One is build to "your" (which isn´t yours) method, the other one is designed by the peers on this forum, to the latest knowledge of boatdesign.
All design methods and calculations have to be open posted here on this very thread, all construction development will be reported by a certified surveyor and a lawyer (I pay them no worries).

Hull, deck, cabin structure have to be of nearly similar size and displacement, total difference has to be below 3% in weight.

A crane will pull up our sampan to 3 meter height, then release the junk. It will fall on solid concrete. (that is far less stress than "your" boats survived battering on the coral reefs for 2 weeks or, so)

In case there is no severe damage, the structure (it is not a boat yet) will be released keel towards ground (waterline level) from 5 meters height.

That is the minimum a solid cruiser should stand, is´nt it?

(just to add to your anecdotal junk, Brent. I battered a reef for 16hrs. on my 50 meter steel yacht, due to my own failure in navigation, and I **** my heart out fearing the consequence, but that was not build by guessing, pro´s did design and build it. I battered for another, too long, 20 hrs on sandbanks in the baltic, in force 220km per hr. where the ducks were walking a hour before, on a steel vessel, riveted 83 years ago. My crew survived...)

The one with the most cracks in the structure pays the bill.
A crack is every single opening of the watertight integrity, measured in cm².

No profit, plain material cost, and I am willing to pay the wages, (except yours) for BOTH vessels.

But, the estimated cost has, of course, to be deposited on a neutral notary account of YOUR choice, in Switzerland.

OK?

Brent,

accept or chicken out here! And do not tell us this was unfair.

Richard

 

Richard
I'd rather just get him to ram the harbor wall with reliable witnesses as suggested. He can do it with his own boat, he already had the offer of a wager there. Everyone including Brent know what will happen.

Or come up with other specific tests to illustrate the marketing hype.
Let it pound across 300m of rock in huge seas. The boat would be severely damaged, even destroyed of course as Brent knows.

Brent collected the good luck tales, embellished them (or accepted them embellished) and uses them to falsely justify his very poor design methods.

It's a smoke and mirrors act of false marketing, why couldn't he just swallow his ego and get on with it without all the rubbish, beats me.

 

I did.

You've got a boat and a single design in 4 variants that you don't understand and can't describe or explain in any engineering terms. That's it.

I've got 3 properties, a boat, an income for life, a machine shop, a wife, 3 grown up children, a career spanning marine biology, geography, computer science and various mechanical engineering trades (I'm not an engineer).

I personally know of 2 Colvin Witches that have hit hard objects at full hull speed without any damage and I'm willing to run my stretched 38' Witch into a 36' design of yours any time. Mine has a full length keel that's 200 x 40 flat bar as it's also part of the ballast tied to a nicely braced stem bar.

Oh by the way it's also a minimum of 1000 kg lighter than your 36 footer but 2 feet longer.

Brent, you're your own worst enemy. The reason I didn't go with a design of yours is one, I long ago learnt that anyone who had nothing good to say about anyone else's designs at all probably didn't have anything worth listening to, and two, the stress risers I saw in Alex's video when pulling the hull segments together horrified me. You simply don't get it.

PDW

 

Like this? (Complete mast arc assembly, says M.O.M. site.) If this were a solution of one of my students in boat engineering assingment, I would unquestionably graded it FAIL. And he/she should have an extra assingment: Explain why is this poor and hazardous practice?

Where is collision bulkhead? This is an offshore boat, right?

 

Anything which can collide with a steel barge at hull speed or a freighter with minimal damage doesn't need any collision bulkhead. They are extremely rare in any offshore boats I've seen, then mostly in boats made of flimsier stuff than steel.
The picture above clearly shows the immense structural strength of my mast support. Your inability to grasp that would give you a failing grade in any design school I would be running, and that of most others.
Thanks for posting the picture. It will answer the question for intelligent people.
Note the flat bar keel webs with a super long span , which has proven inadequate, and thus no longer in the plans. Hasn't been for decades.

 

the stress risers I saw in Alex's video when pulling the hull segments together horrified me. You simply don't get it.

PDW[/QUOTE]

Which stress risers?
How long did it take to get free? I got free in my mid twenties.

 

Doesn't change the fact that the boat was not built to the plans. I have no control over others, who ignore the plans.
So wheres this 36 you say had the same problem? No such boat or incident.

 

It's immense only in it's meaning as immeasurable.. not that it would require much to do that..
Anyway I wasn't too much worried (or interested) about the strength of Brents boats but now I'm just shocked.. It doesn't have anything that could be called as a stringer either