|
Post by tromp on Aug 22, 2016 14:54:59 GMT
But, in my view, there is still one issue to be cleared: does the Hohenzollern model show tilted frames? Peter, in his first post, attached a picture of the back of the Hohenzollern model, showing the difference in tilting between the rows of treenails (frames) and the putti on the gallery. The picture with the yellow and blue lines. I'm working on a post that shows that this effect is caused by photographic distortion also. Need some time though.
No need to bother. Just simply answer my questions.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 21, 2016 17:11:41 GMT
Jules,
I too am in total agreement with what you say. Indeed you will find distortion in every photograph, but perhaps could you answer amateur's question: Why aren't the Stützen parallel in this Image and instead lean noticably towards the waist?
gratis bilder
Could you also explain why the Stützen are more or less in the same angle as the rearmost mizzenmast shrouds? Check the rigging plan in Winter's book and you'll see that these are far from vertical. Have a look at this Image of the Gent model in which I have highlighted the angle of the Stützen and the gunport sides in the same colours as in the HZ-Image above. You will see that every line is perfectly parallel.
bilder upload
Can you also explain why the Gent-model gunport lids are clearly rhomboidal and those of the HZ-model in the Image abover are perfectly square?
I said above that I fully agree with what you say about photographic distortion. But here is an Image of the HZM which was pieced together from four individual photographs. Clearly the distortion as explained in your post above doesn't apply to this Image - but the Frames are still tilted. Perhaps you could explain why?
kostenlose bilder
Thanks Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 21, 2016 9:08:43 GMT
These are the nails that ara means:
fotos hochlad
There are quite a few of the in the lower two wales. Some can be found beneath the waterline too.
en
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 20, 2016 8:42:02 GMT
Fred,
thanks for the two plans of Vasa, I never realised that the port sides were splayed that much! Would it be ok for me to post these to the German Forum?
Regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 19, 2016 14:00:35 GMT
Jules,
there are considerable flaws in the two drawings in your post from yesterday evening. The drawing on the right was drawn neither by Winter nor Wagner, it is known as the Adametz drawing, named after the chap who drew it. No doubt he had his information from Heinrich Winter but if he ever actually saw the real model, we'll never know though it was drawn well before the war. It is not known where he got the measurements from as most of them are incorrect, especially the gunports. The height between the top and bottom sill of the lower ports is given at 5,5cm. If you take the 1:100 scale side-view from the book and measure the space between the second and third wale (counting from the waterline upwards, measured at the waist), multiply this with 100 and divide by 22 you will arrive at 5.2cm, which means the 5,5 for the clearance between the sills is way too much. I have seen smaller scale copies of the HZM in which the modelmaker took these figures for granted and you can easily tell the gunports are way too big. The same applies to the door leading to the quarter Gallery. In both of Winter's longitudinal sections is a step at the foot of this door, which is missing in the Adametz drawing. Thus this door in the Adametzs plan would in real life be a staggering 1,9m high. The plan is beautifully drawn and well detailed but we have to take it with a pinch of salt. At least I do. The drawing on the left was indeed drawn by Heinrich Winter, and if you look closely you'll spot one significant detail: the ports ARE tilted - but not all of them. This is best noticable on the upper gundeck behind the mizzen mast. I hope you don't mind me posting a snippet of this plan here, please just see it under the context that we are discussing the same issue, hoping to come to a conclusion (some day! ;-) ).
bilder kostenlos
The only possibilty I had was to prop up a square against my Monitor and to take a photo of the plan like that. It is odd though that not all ports are tilted, those at the bow clearly aren't. Correspondence between Wagner and Winter survives and I have seen one letter dealing with the Hohenzollernmodel. So I would suggest, that Winter advised Wagner while he was drawing the plans. Wagner's plans are dated 1967 - the year Heinrich Winter died.
Now to answer your question: I am building the model in accordance to what the photographs tell me. Of course I'm using the Wagner plans and others, but if a certain Detail can be made out in the photos which the plans don't show clearly, I'll go for what the photos say. Looking at Rein's comparison on the German Forum between the Gent and the Hohenzollernmodell I'm even more convinced now that the HZM was built with leaning frames and the Gent model wasn't. I have been debating the leaning Frames theory with scholars for more than a year now. Right from the start a lot of respected historians simply refused to accept it (including yourself). Now that it is confirmed that the Vasa was built that way and even more - it was a widespread approach up until second half of the 16th century and looking at pictures of the HZM, I am convinced that it too was built with leaning frames.
Kind regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 19, 2016 4:50:25 GMT
You chose the Wagner version. Would you like to explain why? I've been trying to explain this the whole time
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 18, 2016 17:42:37 GMT
Hello Fred, Thank you for your contribution, again. And, thank you for the kind words about my contributions. And, if my tone in my post to Peter offended you, I apologize. I would like to say in my defense that this tone was provoked by the snide remarks Peter makes about me in 'his' German forum. And also, a bit, by the not so gentlemanlike remarks Peter makes in this forum. Stuff like: 'Any other approach simply doesn't make sense!', '..., and believe me, they did it that way!', and 'Constructionwise anything else couldn't make sense', I do not consider very gentle. But maybe that's just me, being to sensitive. Indeed! I am not directing every comment I make in the Internet against you! Far from it!
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 18, 2016 4:53:16 GMT
Thanks for your Input Fred. Your post refelected my thoughts in every sense.
Regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 16, 2016 19:35:48 GMT
Sure! You believe in what you think is right - I believe in what I think right. Nothing wrong with that!
Best regards
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 16, 2016 15:44:50 GMT
Jules, I too came across the conclusion that the Sturckenburgh drawing does not support my observations at all a few weeks ago. I contacted the Museum in Amsterdam enquiring if I could purchase a copy of the original drawing. Digital copies are available but their service is on holiday and won't be back before August 25th. Anyway, in the meantime I found a good copy in one of my books which shows, like you said, that the frames are parallel in that drawing. But this will nonetheless not stop me from believing that the tilted frame theory is correct, we've seen it on the Vasa and I'm certain it also applies to ships that were built at a later date. I certainly don't believe that an artist's Impression will help to answer questions. I'm not sure if artists like the van de Velde's were actually aware of the tilted Frames and, if they were, did they even care? Nearly every portrait of a Dutch Two-Decker shows a distinctive step in the maindeck near the Konstapelkammer. The Hohenzollermodell didn't have that step. Does this mean that the Hohenzollernmodel is wrong here? I'd much rather rely upon the real thing in this debate- the Vasa - and photos of the near real thing - the Hohenzollernmodell - than on an artists impression who used a single offset for a number of different hulls. I've said it before that compared with the Vasa the tilt of the Frames of the HZM is not as noticable but it is there. Construction-wise anythingh else wouldn't make sense. Though it might have involved some pre-thinking, the advantages are clear. In this Picture you can see that the Stutzen have the same angle as the rear-most mizzenmast shroud. gratis bilder hochladenIf you believe the Stutzen are perfectly vertical then please explain why the angle is the same as the shroud. Regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 16, 2016 4:47:40 GMT
Thank you for taking your time Fred. Your Input is appreciated. Jules, it can be seen in this image too. You have most likely seen it on the German Forum and you probably know it is by Rainer Nooms Zeeman. It is dated 1650 to 1665 gratis bilderRegards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 14, 2016 20:06:44 GMT
Peter,
so Clayton noticed it too. Even the most die-hard opposition of this phenomenon must realise by now that at least regarding the Vasa, there is some truth behind it. I'm not saying that it was the ONLY method - I guess each yard had its own approach. However, what I do believe is that it was very widespread, perhaps not on smaller vessels but on almost all large warships and East-India-Men. Why? Because it is the only most convenient and efficient way of shipbuilding in the dutch style. Any other approach simply doesn't make sense! But was the same technique used in the 1660s and 70s? As far as I'm concerned: yes! If you check out these two images in which I have highlighted the angle of the Stutzen on both ships you will see that their lean is perfectly similar:
bilder uploaden
bild hochladen
You can also use the vertical mizzen-mast in the background as a guide-line to see that the angle of the frames is totally different than the line of the vertical mast.
For me at least this is convincing evidence that the same phenomenan of the tilted frames also applies to the Dutch Two-Decker of 1660-1670. However, the angle of the tilted Frames on the HZ might not have been as accute as on the Vasa but it was still there.
The obvious question now is: why?
The answer is: you have a perfect 90° angle to each deck-beam on the balkweger between two Frames. Now this image here leads me to suggest that deckbeams were placed between two frames:
kostenlose bilder
And this one here too:
kostenlose bilder The Ends of the deck-beams did not butt-join against the frames, they were placed between them. You can see in the blue circle that there is a cut-out for a deckbeam in the balkweger, but the deckbeam itself is missing. This cutout is placed exactly between two frames. In the yellow circle should be the same but here it is difficult to make it out because the shadow of a deckbeam above is cast on it. The green circle Shows a deckbeam in place and this also seems to be between two frames. Thus, due to the tilted Frames each deckbeam can be placed at an exact 90° angle to the frames.
In this plan the beams are vertical. Each and every deckbeam needs to have its top surface chiselled off to fit to the slope of the deckplanks.
kostenlose bilder
This is an inacceptably laborious process! By tilting the frames and placing the square deckbeams between them this whole process can be omitted. They could do it! They were clever enough, and believe me, they did it that way!
Peter D-G
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 12, 2016 3:42:32 GMT
Peter,
I don't think it would be possible to build a model of a Dutch hull showings the frames only. The individual pieces of each frame weren't even attached to each other, only to the outer and the inner skins. Pictures of the Batavia wreck piece even show that there could be slight gaps between these pieces.
Peter (D-G)
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 10, 2016 14:51:22 GMT
Peter (J) to determine the Location of the frames I follow the wooden treenails only and not the iron bolts.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 9, 2016 15:15:08 GMT
Thank you Fred, that really clarifies a lot.
Regards Peter
|
|