Post by Peter Jenssen on Sept 18, 2016 9:23:55 GMT
Hi Jules, Hi everyone,
Apologies for not answering quicker. I am completely out of time at the moment, it being end of trimester here (and various other things ganging up together) Sorry, I was not aware of your focus on one specific ship, one specific time and one specific shipyard. An interesting project it sounds like too!
Unfortunately I have to keep this rather short; I'm aware of the complex shapes of the floor timbers and agree shaping them requires a lot of work, especially those in the stern. I do not mean to imply that it is as easy as placing a straight beam on a flat floor, far from it. However, it would seem reasonable that you want to minimise the amount of wood that needs to be removes post sawing. I started to model what I mean, but unfortunately I have not been able to find the time to finish it. (It's mainly on how to maximise square cross sections and minimise rhomboid cross sections)
It has been a few years since I read what little I have read of Witsen in original. It's slow and arduous for me, so I'm afraid I have to continue to rely on what others say to a very large extent. :-(
Interesting that the discussion is moving towards wrecks. One of my favourite subjects! (Me being a scuba diver and all) Now I have to get back to work unfortunately.
I have Arent's book, and know this drawing, but I am unwilling to generalize from it because of how it was developed, and how flattened out the remains are on the bottom. My initial impression of SO1 is that it has tilted frames, but I would want to see some more three-dimensional data before being sure. I have access to detailed 3d recordings of the Swash Channel timbers, so feel more confident there.
I know some of the people working on the Norman's Bay wreck (they are visiting here in November), but do not know how far along they are in the investigations. I will ask for an update.
Another wreck which may eventually be of interest is Huis te Cruiningen, built 1653, originally for Genoa but taken over by the Admiralty of Amsterdam. It was the flagship of the Dutch fleet engaged by the French in Rockley Bay, Tobago in 1677, where the ship was burned and sunk. Kroum Batchvarov believes that he has found the wreck, apparently in deep mud, and much of the bottom may be intact. Excavation is at an early stage so we will have to wait to see what might be revealed.
About the how and when of my book. First about the when. Do not think in days, weeks or months; think in years. To say it in another way: I'm not in the process of finalizing the request for proposals for the printers yet. The about the how. Think of Boudriot's four volume 'Le vaisseau de 74 canons'. Is this still feasible in a time when all books are ripped and put on the internet within a couple of weeks? Is it feasible to publish something like this in Dutch? By the time I've finished writing, will there still be paper books, or has that concept disappeared in favour of digital books? So, still a lot of questions to be answered. I'll tackle them when I get there.
Met vriendelijke groet,
PS I'm still looking for a great model builder to test my 3D reconstructions. So when you've finished building your PrinsWillem...
Thanks for the reply. I was sure you had the book by Arent Vos; that bit of my post was for Jan. The timbers in SO1 sure look tilted. But everything is indeed very flat. What would the picture be when we place the side upright and make it curve along the bottom? No idea if this data is available from Arent. Looking forward to an update on the Norman's Bay Wreck. TRB-5, Huis te Kruiningen, sure looks very promising. It already seems a long time ago since the discovery hit the headlines. In the Dutch press it immediately turned into a discussion about who owns the wreck. According to the Netherlands the wreck is a Dutch ship of war, so the ship itself is Dutch territory; the ship and its contentst belong to the Netherlands. I hope these matters are cleared now. Good to hear that the ship is in deep mud. Still, I guess it'll take years before there will be anything revealed about the ship's structure. That is, if the financing doesn't dry up. I still remember an effort by a group of people who wanted to help financing the lifting of the A55-wreck out of the polder. It never materialized. It sometimes looks like we're only interested in finding and registering the position of the wrecks; the complete archaeological follow through hardly ever happens. Probably because of financial reasons.
If the Netherlands chooses to assert its right of sovereign immunity, and as long as the state has not already specifically alienated it in a salvage contract or treaty (no evidence of this), the ship belongs to the Netherlands. Kroum is proceeding on this assumption, and has been in contact with Dutch authorities since the beginning of the project (I met with the head of the Dutch navy about it here in Stockholm as well), so I do not expect any difficulties. The Dutch archaeological authorities (RCE) have also been involved in the project as advisors.
We will have to see how much of the hull survives. The bottom of the bay is a complex environment, in which pockets of deep mud are interspersed with open areas of hard sand and rock. Positive identification will also have to wait until more material has been raised and cleaned, but the odds look good so far. Kroum is well-funded, with a big university behind him, and has well developed plans for a full excavation, although for academic reasons it will probably stretch out over time.
As for SO1, the team is currently working on a final publication with loads of detail, including a study of two sails found in the wreck (made the same way as Vasa's sails, as far as we can see - I am a consultant to that part of the project). I am not sure how three-dimensional the hull data are, but Arent and Thijs Maarelveld think that a reconstruction of the hull shape should be pretty straightforward.
Here's a picture of the Hohenzollern-model that, in my view, shows that the nail patterns are parallel to the forward shroud of the mizzen mast, and not to the backward shroud.
I added some some black lines to show what I mean. In reality the mizzen mast is leaning backward, but the forward shroud is almost vertical. All the nail patterns are almost parallel to this shroud, any unparallelity can, in my view, be explained by photographic distortion. Except the pattern of the row of nails between the aftermost shroud and the gallery. Maybe the builder of the model lost track there. This picture, in my view, also shows that the gunport between the shrouds is rhomboidal, and not square. That is also what Winter's own drawings of the model show: rhomboidal gunports. In his drawings the vertical sills of the gunports are perpendicular to the waterline, and the 'horizontal' sills follow the sheer of the deck.
But that's exactly what I'm trying to say here. If one photo of a model shows one thing, and another photo of that same model shows another thing... Compare my black lines with the yellow and blue lines. That's why I backed up the statement about the rhomboidal shape of the gunports with what Winter shows in his drawings. That, in my view, makes what we see in the photo more reliable.
You might want to get better quality pictures than that Jules. The blue lines follow the stutjes above the verteuning. The thick red line is the forward shroud. The orange lines follow the trenail pattern. We are looking at a flat surface. Photographic distortion is minimal.
So now it's down to which photo's we are allowed to use, and which ones we're not. The detail I posted is from a photo that has the largest distance from the model, but still shows the nails. As mentioned before, photo's taken further away from their subjects show less photographic distortion than photo's taken closer to their subjects. So, I think, this photo is the best I could find in my collection. We know the forward shroud is vertical (the rigging plan shows this), we know the vertical sills of the gun ports are vertical (the Winter drawings show this), and we have a photograph that shows that the shroud and the sills are parallel, and that the nail patterns and the 'stutjes' follow along... What more could you possibly want?
Thanks for finding the time to reply. Looking forward to your 'square cross section model'. Will it be a digital 3D-model, or a real life model in wood?
Hi Jules, Sorry for the delay in the response. Workload has eased off somewhat, but sometines I wish the world would slow down a bit. I need about three days for each calendar day.. :-) I am an old style mechanical engineer originally, so I usually reach for pen and paper first when visualising. I was referring to modelling it in a theoretical sense. My hypothesis here was was that minimising bevelling fairing of a flat cut frame and thereby leaving it as square as possible requires the frame not to be placed orthogonally. It would seem that you can then benefit from this in either of two ways, tilt the frame or rotate vertically(like a cant frame)
I didn't get very far due to time and rusty old skills. Perhaps time to take a more modern approach to these sort of things?
I saw in earlier posts that you are using a 3D modelling program? May I ask which program you are using and what's your opinion of it? I used to have an AutoCAD license, I have used Blender a bit, but find the user interface cumbersome. I saw Fred uses Rhino for example.
Now I have to apologize for being late in responding. I sure think your model would be more easily created in a 3D-drawing program. I also am an 'old style mechanical engineer' by birth. Began my 'career' behind the drawing board, used several versions of AutoCad after that, and then went into project management; so my professional engineering career ended. Since my company chose SolidWorks as their 3D standard, I used that in my spare time, just to stay in business. I hated it: very cumbersome and heavy on the computer memory. So, looking for an alternative, I tried Blender and Delftship among others. Not being thrilled, I looked further and came across Rhinoceros. Very happy with that. Runs on my laptop without any problems, and, when you're familiar with AutoCad and SolidWorks, the learning curve isn't too steep. Compared to other professional programs, it isn't too expensive either. Try the free version you can download from their site, and look at the tutorials on ship hull design on YouTube. Hope you like it.
Thank you for the tip. I have downloaded Rhino, but have only just now had time to install. (I have been ridiculously busy the last six weeks) It looks very interesting and, at first look anyway, user friendly and intuitive.
To youtube for tutorials!
I do part time studies, so perhaps I can qualify for student discount. :-)