Transverse frame calculation

Perhaps "we" should take it upon us to model a rudimentary version of his boat in 3d since we have access to his plans and submit it to some FEA. Hopefully then brent could actually see where the design was weak. The earlier stress test was good, but as it was noted, it is hard to say without knowing the exact geometry as brent would claim his has special curvature, this isn't a problem anymore.

If the model was made to his specification in CAD, the only thing he could do would be to claim that the physics model of the various software does not accurately replicate real physical stresses. Of course, that would be a bit ridiculous. Sure it takes a trained eye to know how to interpret the data from such analysis, but when we build fighter aircraft, submarines, space craft, missiles, and bridges direct from CAE applications, you have to admit that the computer models do a good job at getting us mostly the way there.

 

Peers,

don´t worry. I scaled the "drawings" down to appear in a irregular shape that no one can use to build to it.

If I would have left them in original shape I might have encountered the problem you fear.
But I doubt one can claim a copyright on the proof of being nuts...........

What I fear much more is, that there have been some people building to the original sketches!? Which are as worthless in the original size than in any.

If there is one to argue about posting these amateurish sketches, then it is me. It did cost me internet traffic via GSM and roaming cost on top.

Regards
Richard

 

He started by saying he is the only one who know how to design a boat.

I made no such claim. I only said there are better ways to go about arriving at a hull shape than the extremely tedious, wasteful traditional methods, which take far to may man hours to arrive at a lesser product than origami methods give us.
We have done far to little to advance small steel boatbuilding, stuck in the way they have been done for the last 50 years or more. Time to look at better alternatives..

 

The 36 has 4500 lbs of ballast in a 55000 lb keel when you count the steel . The 40 has 6,000 lbs lead ,plus the steel. The 31 has 3500 lbs plus the steel the tankage also adds a bit.

 

I emailed Clive of your offer.He said he would look into it, and get back to me. Perhaps I should send him a reminder. You should read the last pages of his book "No Fixed address before you get into a demolition derby with him.

 

Do you se any of the other self proclaimed "Experts" giving testimony of the torture tests their boats have endured? Not a chance.
Yet they claim al my clients, and their crews, who have sailed my boats for tens of thousands of miles are all liars. Takes a liar to make such a claim.

 

The claims are by you, you alone. It is therefore for YOU to provide the evidence, independent evidence. If you cannot provide it, that is fine, please just say so. But please don’t waste anyones time with your endless words going round and round in circles…it doesn’t convince anyone.

If anyone makes a claim, they must provide independent verification of said claim.

If I said, look I have invented a way of teleporting myself to the moon by pressing this button….it is not for the rest of the scientific and engineering world to prove me wrong. It is for me, to prove it works , how and why, otherwise it is just a claim, nothing more.

You’re labouring under a very false misapprehension that the laws of engineering and science revolve around you and thus have no need to explain yourself, sorry to tell you, they don’t.

If you make a claim, one that goes against what is accepted, YOU, yes YOU must provide the evidence to support YOUR claim. Otherwise it is just an opine…and nothing else. Just like your anecdotes...endless words with no meaning.

 

You are so wrong, they are state of the art for strength and weight. Under a regulatory body such as ISO you couldn't get a lighter simpler structure that is safe.

Can you actually show that it's otherwise even by a simple rule of thumb? Can you identify one tiny bit of structure that is irrelevant that is actually insisted upon? Nope you can't because it's refined to the minimum. Most designers would go well beyond the ISO guide for extra robustness unless designing go fast boats.


You are making up grossly weak structures because you are blind. Open your eyes and your closed mind and listen to facts. Not put your fingers in your ears and run around shouting I'm right the rest are wrong. A collection of bedtime stories are your analysis. But we can show you where and why your designs are weak (even dangerous) and where they can be improved .

And your response is that of an ego maniac.

It's real easy to make grand egotistical statements from the top of a soapbox. Its dumb when you consider that you don't have even the basic knowledge to do a critical analysis. Its only gross ignorance dressed as wisdom. By now you are shredded and we havn't even covered the design flaws evident in other parts of the boat. I'm not sure we even need to.

You make yourself the fool.
I resent the negative points you've been dishing out with wise *** comments. The only reason you have such a high score is that the Pro's actually gave you positive points before. You can't even get that right.

Sad individual.

 

Yesterday was warm and sunny. Went for a great swim. The weatherman is predicting warm and sunny a week from now.He is backed by a degree in meteorology and some of the most high tech equipment available. When I say yesterday was warm and sunny , it's just an" anecdote" from someone with no formal training in meteorology. There is no way such an" anecdote" can be anywhere near as accurate as a forecast for a week from now, made by someone with a degree in meteorology, and all the latest high tech equipment? There is no way statement of what has already experienced can be anywhere near as accurate as a prediction?
I give you" anecdotes" of what has already been experienced by my clients in extreme conditions. There is no way what they have actually experienced can be anywhere near as accurate as what you are predicting, with no actual experience in those conditions, on one of my boats? Duhhh!! That is the argument you are constantly making in this debate.

 

When they build boats equivalent to the class and engineering standards used in the industry it is not just their boats you would be measuring against, but (nearly) all other boats made by most respectable architects and boat yards around the world.

The proof in their methodology is that hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of boats around the world survive all manner of incidents without most people thinking that stepping on a boat is an adventure where their life is exceptionally in danger.

Do accidents happen? Yes. Are some boats made poorly? Absolutely. Are some NA/NEs putting out shoddy work? Most likely. Do even very well engineered and manufactured boats sink? Definitely.

Do engineering standards and common practices and licensing and sanctioning bodies help the industry? Yes. Does it help reduce the danger to boating? An absolute unqualified yes!

Are common practices and classes the end-all/and-all? Probably not, but if you exceed them it doesn't hurt, if you trim back on them people could get hurt or die. If you ignore them you would be unwise and negligent at best, evil or criminal at worst. Can you build something outside of common practices and engineering orthodoxy? ABSOLUTELY!!! But you better know what the **** you are doing above and beyond the call of duty, no exceptions, take no risks. Build computer models, physical models, talk to experts, spend some serious chalk time, conduct material and methods tests etc etc. To do otherwise would make you naive and dangerous.

 

You claim my clients get all their welding rods, cutting gases, tools transportation, scrap stainless, etc, etc for free? Let me know how I manage that, so I can try it.
Costs vary widely, depending on how resourceful and what lucky strikes they get. Some are able to borrow tools some have to buy them, some get deals on stuff, some don't. They all work alongside me and see exactly how many hours and what hangups we encounter. I won't build for someone who won't get his hands dirty alongside me.

 

When are you going to buy that Lloyds approved fibreglass boat, at your expense, sail her to BC,at your expense, and have the demolition derby with me? No? Then keep your mouth shut , chickenshit!

 

There is absoluteluy nothing to stop any client from putting in any structural he feels necessary. However, by the time he has finished the steel work, he will have met enough of my experienced clients to have told him putting in more steel is a waste of time.

 

Ok, now that is just classic childish deflection.

Richard stated very clearly that people (myself being one of them) had made offers for a television show to host the "event". Another part (not myself) apparently made a preliminary financial offer which would be sufficient to cover the cost of the materials and travel and accommodations for you to the build site.

It is my understanding that Richard or the hosting entity was to pay for the other incidentals, such as on-site labor, facilities, etc etc.

If properly engineered (the event), I imagine there could be numerous other incentives such as sponsorships, or even people wanting to see such an event in person.Depending on the production quality, media coverage, etc etc.

In all fairness the financial burden is all on Richard on this one. If you are willing to counter with him and offer the same resources he has offered you, then "maybe" you could have it build at a respectable yard in the BC, or maybe even some place "neutral".

But please stop the childish finger pointing. You are an adult and a professional.

 

Very illuminating, that's about the level of expertise I'd expect. What an amaterish approach to design. It's the same level as his plans. And presumably his book.

Brent if you don't have lines you don't know any of the design ratios,if you don't have weights and moments you don't know the COG, then you can't ahve a GZ curve either. But you said before that you had a stability curve, later you said you derived it from a model and it went to 180 degrees positive. How did you establish the COG ? How did you establish the GZ.

I really think you were deceptive there, please prove me wrong. You have been saying you have a GZ curve 'somewhere' but can't find it.

Thats just a marketing fib isn't it........