Tampilkan postingan dengan label thoughts. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label thoughts. Tampilkan semua postingan

Kamis, 07 Juli 2016

A couple of thoughts regarding ballast

Follow the money, a good point, and someone doing good...

So, here are a few numbers to play with;
  • A cubic foot of water weighs 62 pounds
  • A cubic foot of concrete weighs 150 pounds
  • A cubic foot of iron weighs 491 pounds
  • A cubic foot of lead weighs 709 pounds
  • A cubic foot of gold weighs 1206 pounds
Like a lot of people I like the idea of water ballast. Whats not to like... its free, you can lose it when you dont want it around, and it works. Of course, theres a downside (theres always a downside to anything) in that it takes up a lot more room than most of us care to give up within the interior.

Case in point: Phil Bolgers take apart three piece schooner that Ive often considered building as a non-take-apart boat which has often been on my shortlist for the next Loose Moose. Of course replacing the water ballast with other ballast types would gain a lot more room...

That said, somehow the idea of a 47-foot boat has lost a lot of its allure for me but would still make a certain kind of sense due to its 1.5-foot draft and enough room and stowage to be able to work on rigging jobs and build self-steering gears/dinghies/surfboards as a nomadic shop/business model.

Listening to Bob Dylan covering Frank Sinatra

So it goes...
Read More..

Minggu, 05 Juni 2016

Thoughts on V Bottomed Hulls

There is a lot of prejudice about flat-bottomed hulls, even though ones of good design can make excellent boats. But in western culture there is a far greater acceptance of the V-bottomed hull-form. I guess it is just a case of what we are used to seeing - westerners are familiar with the V-bottomed form and see it as being quite normal, just as I imagine that Chinese and South-East Asian people would have little argument with the virtues of a flat-bottomed boat.

Flint showing her V-bottomed hull-form
More than anything, I believe that concerns about pounding prevent the wider acceptance of flat-bottomed hulls.

A good example of a flat-bottomed sailing hull - this one is a Green Island 15
Any light-weight boat will pound, but if well heeled over, a flat-bottomed hull will run softly because the sharp angle between the bottom and the topsides acts as a "V". But if the boat is upright pounding can be a real problem.

Ive designed a number of V-bottomed hulls, but my main reason for using this form has been to gain stiffness in the bottom panels. The V-bottom picks up stiffness because the bottom is broken into two halves, and the keel line is very stiff indeed due to the convexity of the bottom in two directions - somewhat similar to the strength in an eggshell, which would break easily if a flat panel, but is extremely strong for its weight when in a compound, convex shape.

That is me sanding the keel line of Flint. You can easily imagine how stiff the bottom is, even though it is made from 6mm (1/4") plywood. If it was a flat panel it would be very flexible if not supported by internal framing.
My primary concern with hard-chined hulls, regardless of whether they are flat-bottomed, V-bottomed, or multi-chined, is the matter of turbulence where the flow of water crosses the chine line. Without access to tank-testing or sophisticated Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) programs, my assessment of correct hull design for hard-chined forms has been based on intuition and common sense backed-up by insights Ive gained from the writings of the late Philip C. Bolger.

One method of reducing turbulence around the chine is to keep the chine out of the water altogether - both Jim Michalak and Phil Bolger have used this technique a number of times - but the problem with that is it generally works well only if the boat is a light displacement design intended to run on an even keel e.g. rowing boats and power boats.

When more displacement is required, I use a different approach. A good example for discussion is my Alby design, which is a short pram dinghy designed to be short, but able to carry a heavy load. She was designed for my friend, Allan Burke. In order to maximise the displacement (therefore increase the carrying capacity), I used a lot of keel rocker, and reduced the angle of the "V" in the bottom amidships to only about 3.5 degrees. However, in order to reduce pounding, I twisted the bottom panels to give a relatively sharp "V" at the waterline foreward and aft - 18 to 20 degrees of deadrise.


In the drawing above, you can see how the chine-line (drawn in red) sweeps down strongly from the bow and stern to the lowest point amidships. The resulting hull is almost flat-bottomed amidships but quite well Vd at the bow and stern. I could have made her totally flat in the middle, but I left enough "V" to give the "eggshell" stiffness of a convex shape.

Some people will tell you that running a chine deeply into the water will cause excess turbulence and drag, but that is only the case if the hull is incorrectly shaped in 3D. You must consider a boat shape in profile, plan and body plan (i.e. end elevation) to get some idea of how the water will flow.


Above you can see the same hull viewed in body-plan . See how the designed curve in the topside panels and the bottom panels has resulted in a clean and well-streamlined chine-line (drawn in red)?


Now look at the same hull heeled at 20 degrees. The chine-line is forming a beautiful "V" with very little to cause turbulence, or to hold the boat back. This is one of the primary reasons why a well-designed pram or scow can be so fast - particularly in flat water.

This may give a clearer idea of how well the shape will slip along with minimal turbulence.
The only way to achieve the same effect on a sharp-bowed boat is to run the chine very high at the bow. An excellent example of this approach is Jack Holts Mirror 16 design.

Mirror 16 showing chine-line. (courtesy Terence, Boatdesign.net)
In contrast, have a look at a hull with a hard chine and the chine-line left low at the bow - you can imagine how much turbulence and resistance would be generated by the chine (drawn in red) being forced forward through the water.



These are just my own thoughts, but Im sticking with them at this stage.
Read More..

Minggu, 21 Februari 2016

a couple of quick multihull thoughts

Some needful reading, a good article on murder rates, and a very interesting proposal...

As most of you are aware, Im a big fan of Reuel Parker and think that anyone building a boat really needs to have read his "The New Cold-Molded Boatbuilding". Plus his designs are way cool...

Then again, theres this puppy...

...or, as I usually refer to it, the condo from hell. Of course, with modern multihull design and aesthetics being what they are these days, it would fit right in with whats out there. But, one really does expect better from a designer who draws such beautiful boats.

I suspect Mr Parker gave the client exactly what he asked for...

However, if you look closely at the design, I cant help but conjecture that there is a Wharramesque cat crying out to be released from its burden of the bridgedeck monstrosity someone stuck on its back.

An open bridgedeck with, maybe, a small pod would be less expensive, cheaper/faster to build, and perform a whole lot better as a result. All of a sudden Im finding this design a lot more interesting the minute the bridgedeck cabin gets left out of the mix.

Offhand, if I were thinking of building something like a Wharram, Im pretty sure Id give Parker a call and see what he might come up with the same sort of brief... Which is not to say that I dont like Wharrams (I built a Tiki 31) I do but, as there is a dearth of open bridgedeck cat designs, a little new blood and insight would be no bad thing at all.

Just thinking out loud...

Listening to the Mavericks

So it goes... 
Read More..