|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 20:31:00 GMT
Hi Matti,
If it helps: I am able to download your PDF 'Referenshantering enligt APA-stilen'.
I think what Fred means is that the maximum attachment size is 1 MB and that his PDF's are too big to simply add as an attachment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 13:46:28 GMT
Hi Matti,
You understood correctly: desperately need a save-option. Strange that no one in forum-land came up with a simple feature like 'save'. Good to hear though that I'm not the only one who is confronted with loosing his work. Thanks for the tip, I'll change my workflow and will prepare the thread in Word in future.
Regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 12:03:03 GMT
Hi everyone,
Maybe I missed something, but is there a way to save a new thead or a new post? When my internet connection drops out, I, of course, have to log in again. But then there seems to be no back up file available. Which means I have to start all over again. I would really appreciate a save function or even an, let us boldly go were no one has gone before, auto-save function.
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 11:42:39 GMT
I have a couple of questions about Vasa's deck beam construction. Dutch deck beam construction is very different from English deck beam construction. I hope the sketch below explains the Dutch way of building ships with riders, like Vasa is, a bit, so I can explain my questions. In the sketch I show one side of the ship with an orlop deck beam and a first gun deck beam in place. At one side of the beams a knee can be seen, on the other side of the beams a rider (steunder) can be seen. Between the knees and riders chocks (klossen, painted red) can be seen. In front of the chocks, the waterways (watergangen) can be seen. Above the chock of the first gun deck, the bottom end of a knee of the second gun deck is visible. To get to my questions, I have to go through the building sequence of this construction. First the deck clamps (balkwegers) are placed against the side of the ship. These have dovetail recesses at their top sides to receive the beam ends. After the placing of the beams, a spirketing (zetweger) is placed on top of the beam to keep it in position. And then we come to my first question. Witsen shows, in some of his drawings of ships without riders, that the waterways touch the deck clamps. In case of a ship with riders, this would translate into a touching of the spirketing with the deck clamp. Judging from photo's of Vasa, I am pretty sure this is not the case with Vasa: an opening between the deck clamp and the spirketing can in some cases be seen. My question is, if these openings are really there and are not the result of the stresses applied to the ship when salvaging it. And, if these openings are a structural phenomenon, if they were planked over with a filling piece. An opening just doesn't seem right to me. (P.S. In the sketch I filled the gap by making recesses in the lower side of the spirketing, so it drops over the beam and touches the deck clamp. In this way the spirketing provides a better construction surface for the chocks.) To get to my second question, I have to continue the building sequence. After the spirketing is placed, the knees and riders are placed against the side of the ship and the side of the beams: a knee on one side of the beam, a rider on the other side of every other beam. After the knees and riders are placed, the chocks are placed to fill the gap between the spirketing and the waterway. And then we come to my second question. I wonder how the ends of the chocks (klossen) were supported. In case of the lower gun deck, one chock-end can be placed on top of the beam, the other chock-end finishes on the side of the rider and is not supported by the beam. In case of the orlop deck, the situation is even worse. In that case both chock-ends are not supported by the beams. Was the support of the chock-ends considered as not necessary since the chocks were bolted against the side of the ship anyway. Or were the sides of the riders and knees provided with dovetails to receive the ends of the chocks? Or were simple battens nailed against the sides of the riders and knees to support the chock-ends? A second question relating to the chocks comes up then: how were the joints between the chocks and the knees and riders filled. Were they simply caulked, or were they first wedged up between the knees and riders beforer being caulked. Vos used the wedging-method in his Batavia. I am curious to know if this same method applies to Vasa. I hope someone can help, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 9:40:33 GMT
Hi Matti,
Many thanks for the new look. Looks great!
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 9:37:15 GMT
Hi Fred,
Thanks for the answer.
So, no knees in the after gallery. This would mean that the beams are only lying on the deck clamps and have no connection to the side of the ship. Are the beams and deck clamps connected by dovetails to make a connection between the beams and the sides in some way?
In the higher positions of the ship, the beams are placed provissionaly with their top ends against the underside of the pre-fitted waterways. In a later stage the deck clamps are placed underneath the beams to support them. Would be interesting to know if these have dovetails.
Thanks in advance,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 9:18:52 GMT
Hi Clayton,
I await your comments on Witsen with great anticipation. Let's make it an interesitng discussion.
You are in an enviable position if you have access to Fred's 'advance copy stuff'. Are you his co-reader?
On Hoving's book: it has a delivery time of 2 to 3 weeks in the Netherlands as well.
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 24, 2014 9:06:33 GMT
Hi Fred,
Would be great to have the 'old' modeler's plans available digitally as PDF.
Any ideas on when the new set of plans will be available?
Thanks,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 16, 2014 7:56:59 GMT
Thanks for the picture Fred, I understand figure 5-11 from VASA I, eroded and damaged ceiling on the portside on the port side of the upper cabin, a lot better now.
Is it so that the construction with the knees between the futtocks applies to all three rooms: great cabin, upper cabin and coach?
VASA Plan 2 is not conclusive on this; that plan only shows the knee heads in the front part of the great cabin. The 'old' longitudinal plan from Eva-Maria Stolt shows more knee heads: in the front part of the upper cabin and in the coach. Is that plan still considered to be up to date?
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 13, 2014 16:08:01 GMT
Thanks Fred, So you think the contract is in Amsterdam foot? Might be in Rotterdam feet to, you never know with Van Yk since he came from the south. But since Van Yk worked for the VOC and this contract probably concerns a big VOC-ship, I believe you're probably right; the VOC standardized to the Amsterdam foot. Problem is, by heart, I do not know in what year they standardized. If you're interested, I can try to find it in Van Dam for you. Hmm, I have to pass on your proposal for the translation of Ralamb and Van Yk. Van Yk: 370 pages, Ralamb: 70 pages. If you do the Ralamb, I'll do 70 pages of Van Yk of your choice. No problem on your requests for the translation: I'll use 'inch' and 'hewn' if you prefer it that way; your wish is my command. I'll give you the next bit of the 1629-contract of Van Yk. At this pace I should be ready by the time you have finished Vasa III (Any ideas when? So I can start planning). In foots and inches again:
The Stem, measured with the curve, was long | 47 | 0 | In the square, from the top of the keel | 32 | 8 | Fell to the front | 34 | 0 | Was thick | 1 | 6 | Was wide, at the top | 3 | 0 | In the middle | 2 | 6 | Below | 3 | 6 | The inner Rabbet was thick | 0 | 4 1/2 | The Rabbet was wide | 0 | 4 | was deep | 0 | 3 1/2 | The Stem was, at the bottom, hewn to, at each side | 0 | 1 |
That's all about the stem. Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 13, 2014 15:36:39 GMT
Thanks Fred.
Very clear for the orlop, the lower gundeck and the upper gundeck. You do not mention the beams of the third deck. I suppose they finish against the futtocks/toptimbers as well and do not protrude.
I am also curious about the placement of the knees of the great cabin (kajuit) on the upper gundeck. Witsen describes that the knees of the cabin of his pinas are placed between the top futtocks; probably to save space. (Witsen 1671, p. 79, I, "4. De knies tusschen de stutten lang 5 voet). The 'Hollandischer Zweidecker'-model of 1670 shows no knees in the cabin, so the description of Witsen seems to be accurate (Winter, Tafel IV and photo 30). Winter neither shows knees in the hut and the top hut. It would be a good thing to know how this was executed with Vasa.
And guys, don't leave it all to Fred this time. I believe the most of you have built models of Vasa, some of you even from scratch, so some of you must have solved this matter long time ago. It would be nice to know what your experiences with these constructions were. Please join in.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 13, 2014 15:04:34 GMT
Visited the museum 10 years ago. To my disappointment there were not a lot of books to buy then. My only purchase was the small, very brown, Vasa-guide by Erling Matz.
Things must have improved since then. Time to plan another trip to Stockholm!
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 12, 2014 11:14:23 GMT
Hi Fred, Thanks for expanding on the subject. It's getting clearer and clearer for me now. Still surprising though. I include the Sturckenburg-drawing from the Amsterdam Scheepvaartmuseum, to show what the 'normal' framing looked like in the 1650s (approximately). It is a drawing of a later date and of a smaller ship than Vasa, but can, in my opinion, still be considered as a good representation of the 'normal' practice in Vasa's days. In the drawing we can see that the futtocks are closely packed at the range of the first row of gunports. Something we do not see at Vasa; at least, in the small section Fred so thoroughly checked. Just some thoughts on this subject. Was Vasa preliminary intended as a twodecker? When they started building they were focusing on a two decked vessel and prepared the wood accordingly. When it was later decided that a decked over waist was more appropriate, an extra row of top timbers was stuck between the 'old' top timbers to create the extra height. Or do all the structural surprises originate from a more banal given: a shortage of wood with the appropriate length? Interesting information about the chocks behind the second gundeck beam ends. I remember a discussion with Hoving about this subject. Hoving almost always shows beam ends that are placed between the futtocks in his reconstructions (as Vos did with his Batavia), the beam ends of the second deck protrude till they reach the outer planking. Am I right in saying that the second gundeck beams of Vasa do not protrude? Or is this just a local phenomenon, only to be seen in the short fragment Fred checked? Can anybody help? Thanks, Jules PS. The Sturckenburg drawing is a scan of the worked up drawing Franklin included in his 'Navy Board Ship Models'. I hope he doesn't mind. The A3-copy I bought from the museum is far too faint to scan.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 12, 2014 10:39:35 GMT
Fred, you never stop to amaze me. All the things you have to do for work and for this forum, and you're still looking for extra work! If we concentrate on Ralamb first, you've got yourself a deal. We'll translate Ralamb in a month or so, and do Van Yk in the next couple of weeks. No problem.
I'll start things of with some of Van Yk though. I'll give the translation of the first couple of lines from the 'certer' of the big ship of 1629 I mentioned before. For Vasa-connaisseurs, like our forum-members, this 'certer' seems to be the most appropriate in Van Yks work. It describes a very large ship that was built in almost the same year as Vasa.
(Sorry for the lay out. The forum-support for tabs does not seem to be as sophisticated as in Word. Should have used the table-option probably.)
Contract of a Ship long 172, wide 39 Feet 9 Thumb, depth 20 Feet 8 Thumbs, built in the Year 1629.
Foot Thumb
The Keel was long 134 3 The Scarphs closed with 30 Bolts were long 11 0 The Ends were thick 0 4 Deep at the front 2 0 Deep at the middle 2 1 Deep at the end 1 5 Wide at the middle 2 1 Fore and aft according to the stem-and sternpost. The rabbet was hacked deep 0 3 1/2 Was at first hacked wide 0 7 Then hacked to 0 4 1/2 The inner rabbet was thick 0 4 1/4 Was hacked rising, up to the Garboard strake 2 0 Twisted Sharply, measured from the Heel 18 6 Was at the inner side of the Stem hacked up to the Keel 0 2 And there Keelward down 0 6 The keel was stacked hollow 0 7 The Holes of the Scarph-Nails stood wide 1 1 That's all we find about the keel. Van Yk continues with 9 pages packed with information about this ship. One of the features of this ship is that it, like Vasa, has four sets of wales below the first row of gunports.
I hope it becomes clear that it is hard to come to grips with this matter. Interpretation of this information is not straight forward and thus open to interpretation and discussion. Design drawings showing what this all means, can be posted to this forum. Making a design drawing based on this information might be a good practice for Clayton, preferably before he starts on Witsen.
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 12, 2014 9:51:22 GMT
Hmmm, paid a lot more for VASA I here in the Netherlands. More like 65 euros.
|
|