|
Post by jules on Mar 7, 2021 14:12:32 GMT
Hello Jaap, Ok, let me try to get a word in. I think it is essential to take a step back and go back to the basics. The basics are what shipbuilder Grebber left us. He had a set of rules, a set of formulas, a set of proportions, based on the length of the ship. He argued that when you have determined the proportions for a ship of one length, you can apply these same proportions for ships of all lengths. This principle was taken up by Witsen, and he decided to expand the list of formulas he found in Grebber's list. Hence he uses the expression building ships according to the 'evenmaat'; we would now translate as building ships according to proportions. Point is, Grebber only left formulas for 20 values of the ship. He was kind enough to do all the calculations for 29 lengths of ship, but the proportions stay the same for all lengths. From these 20 formulas only 6 apply to the shape of the lower hull, and they apply only to the main frame position. So with these 6 values only, Grebber was able to design the main frame for all ships. What Witsen did not explain is how Grebber did this. And this is essential. He should have explained Grebber's method first, before trying to apply Grebber's rules on the shape of the main frame of the pinas. That he did not succeed can be blamed on the fact that the pinas was not built according to Grebber's rules, and that applying Grebber's rules to a ship with a different design intention is impossible. Let me explain this by stepping into Witsen's shoes, and make that missing description of how to use Grebber's rules for designing the main frame. Have a look at this extra page I made for Witsen's book: And here's the description of what I did. I took the values Grebber gives for a ship with a length of 170 feet. It is of no importance which length you take, but I prefer to use this length because it is the length of Gouden Leeuw. Figure A. I drew a rectangle a, b, c, d with a length of the width of the ship: 42' 5,5", and a height of the depth of the ship: 17'. Then I added a vertical line in t he middle of this rectangle.
Figure B. I took the width of the bottom, 28' 3,75", and drew two vertical lines symmetrically on each side of the centre line. I took the rising of the bottom, 1' 5", and drew a horizontal line parrallel to the bottom line of the rectangle. I took the width of the bilge, 39' 3,5", and drew two vertical lines symmetrically on each side of the centre line. I took the rising of the depth of the bilge, 5' 5", and drew another horizontal line parrallel to the bottom line of the rectangle. Where these lines cross, we find the points f and g. Figure C. To draw the first arc I drew a line from a to g, and placed a line perpendicular to the middle of the line a-g. Where this line crosses the upper horizontal line of the rectangle, we find the center of our arc.: point e. Figure D. To draw the second arc I drew a line from f to g, and placed a line perpendicular to the middle of the line f-g. Where this line crosses the line e-g, we find the center of the second arc: point h. Figure E. To draw the line of the bottom, I drew a line from the middle of the lower horizontal line of the rectangle, tangent to the arc f-g. Figure F. I mirrored the lines found in figure E, and that's it. Place this shape on top of the keel, and you're good to go. This is the normal shape when using the proportions from Grebber's table; for all lengths of ships. The shape of the main frame stays the same no matter the type, the length or function of the ship. That's quit limited isn't it? Notice, for example, the steep bottom that was no longer in use in Witsen's time. Or notice the width-depth proportion of exactly 2,5 to 1 that was no longer in use in Witsen's time either. Take for example Witten Oliphant with 43' to 16', not even near to 2,5 to 1 . And the problem is, for these diverting ships we can not simply use Grebber's method; as Witsen found out the hard way. Look at where Witsen's point e is for drawing the first arc, not even close. And that is also why he can not explain where point h is for drawing the second arc. It simply does not add up for his pinas. And here is where the expertise of the shipbuilder came in. The shipbuilder could find solutions when you wanted ships that were not standard, that could not be built by applying a simple set of rules. Witsen could not, and that's why we do not find much on ship design in his book. And that's also why we struggle to apply these rules to the design of the ships we want to reconstruct. But, after all of this, I am not sure how all this is going to help you in the reconstruction of your ship of 155 foot of 1664. Van Yk gives a width of 36' and a depth of 17' for this ship, not exactly standard, is it? I hope this helps. If not: shoot away! Regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 27, 2021 12:13:43 GMT
Hello Philemon (hallo Jaap), Thanks for explaining that you do not think I am biased. But what comes up next is your remark: 'I think your reasoning is flawed', which you explain by saying that I am trying to prove that all swans are white, while we know that black swans exist. Let me respond by saying that I am not trying to prove that all ships are round. What I am trying to prove is that ships that are built by using Witsen's bottom based buiulding method do no necessarily have to have a chine. And, please allow me, I think I have proved that. If you do not think so, please let me know. And there is a reason for why I want to prove this simple fact. There seems to be a dogma in the perception of the building method Witsen describes. This dogma dictates that all ships built according to Witsen's method show a chine. Since this dogma has a large groop of followers who do not reason by arguments, but by dictate, I wanted to make sure that you are not one of those followers of the dogma, and made the dashing statements I made. It was a sort of preselection to determine who I was dealing with, before engaging to the fullest. Because, I really do not want to start another discussion with another one of those zelotes. In your last contribution you seem to be using one of the 'proofs' for the dogma as well: a quote from Van Yk that describes shipbuilding in the 'Noorderkwartier', the North of Holland. But, like many before you, you leave out the key sentence. Van Yk's complete sentence goes like this (page 70): "..., heb ik gesien dat by sommige Meesters nog Scheepen werden gebouwd, die, in 't op, of omgaan van de Kimmen, een Plank hebben, die al dapper over d'andere Planken inkomt, en aldaar een Kimmende Naad geevd. Sulks dat het Vlak, hier door vande Kimmen, schijnd onderscheiden te sijn." Translated: "..., I have seen that some Masters still built ships, which, in shaping the bilge, have a plank that goes over the others, and gives an open seam. So that it seems that the bottom is separated from the bilge." The key phrase in Van Yk's description of course is ' sommige Meesters', ' some Masters'. Van Yk has seen this phenomenon with some masters, not with all masters. So, to me, this description of Van Yk can surely not be used to say that all ships built according to the building method of the North of Holland, Witsen's method, show a bottom that seems to be separated from the bilge. So your conclusion: "Van Yk merely emphasises the consequence of the method described by Nicolaes Witsen which is the different shape of the bilge", is not justified because it generalises about all of the ships built according to Witsen's method, while Van Yk is only talking about some of the ships built according to Witsen's method. And that Van Yk is wise in limiting his statement is clear from the fact that we have found wrecks of ships that were built according to Witsen's method and did not have the chine, or the 'different shape of the bilge' as you prefer to call it. I hope we can agree on that. Please give me your view. About the design Witsen describes with support of his drawing between the pages 150 and 151. I think we can only qualify the figure W as a design figure. Here's why. Figure W is in chapter 11 of Witsen's book. In this chapter, titled 'How one assembles the ship's parts', Witsen is describing the building process of the North. While he is in full flow describing how the round transition between the bottom and the bilge is made by using figure V, he suddenly takes a step back because he realises he has forgotten to explain how this transition was designed. This is when he introduces a discription of the design process, starting at page 151, I. And he uses figure W to explain this design process. This is how he says it himself: "The figure at the letter W, which is at the top, shows how one makes the design on paper, before one starts building the ship, ...". Witsen's text about the design is very short, and he only uses figure W as an illustration of what he is trying to explain about design. The rest of the figures on the same page, V, X and Z, are only used as illustrations of the building process, as he says so himself. To stress my point in a more general way, I am trying to fight the idea that the building method decided the shape of the hull. The design determined the shape of the hull, not the building method. Designs could be transformed into ships no matter what building method was used. Both Van Yk's southern method or Witsen's northern method could be used to make ships with round bilges or ships with angular bilges. The idea that Witsen's northern method can only produce angular bilges, can, and has to be discarded. Proving this has nothing to do with proving that there are only white swans. Thanks for describing your discovery about the fairing process here. I did read your contributions on Academia about this subject a while ago. Thanks for bringing it over here as well. It would be nice to see your reconstructions and models of the 155-footer here. Also looking forward to see your reconstruction of Witsen's main frame, with a 'very subtle chine'. To be continued. Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 19, 2021 11:31:11 GMT
Hello Philemon,
You say the examples I gave of the wrecks form no proof. Let me remind you again that these wrecks were all build according to Witsen's method: bottom first. I am still waiting for your proof of hulls with chines though.
I hope that we can agree on the fact that Witsen's pinas is not the best example of the proportions that were normally used in Dutch shipbuilding. You proving to me that Witsen's pinas had a chine, certainly does not imply that all ships build with the bottom first method had a chine. Even when we look at the evidence Witsen himself gives for the chine, you have to admit that we can only find the chine in the drawings he uses to explain the building method. Not in the drawings he uses to explain the general design of the ship; we then see the rounded transition of bottom and bilge. And, very important, this is supported by his text: two arcs, not one.
What you are doing is isolating a couple of drawing from Witsen's book, which have nothing to do with design, and draw conclusions about design from these drawings alone. You are not accepting the proof for the contradictory that is in that same book. Look for example at the technical drawing of the 'Noorts-vaerder' in Witsen's book (plate LX, opposite page 160). This is a real design drawing for an actual ship type, and it shows the rounded transition. For two cases actually, Witsen even gives the design changes that have to be made for a ship that has to sail to another region.
And please, accept proof that is outside Witsen's book. Wrecks are very important sources. Look in art: look at the hull shapes of the keeled ships in Nooms' etches. Look at the preserved contemporary design drawings. To the best of my knowledge, all show round shapes, not angled shapes. So please do what your physics teacher told you, and do not just quote him. Keep an open mind for all proof, not just the proof you decided to use to prove your thesis. And please refrain from suggesting that I am biased.
Regarding the trim (stuurlast) that Witsen does not seem to mention. Again, Witsen does not talk much about design. He mainly talks about a building method, and gives a lot of formulas for the design of ship parts, not the actual design of the ship. As mentioned before, in Witsen's book design limits itself almost to the rules which are reflected in the table of Grebber that Witsen reproduces. That trim was present in the design during Witsen's time and location, Amsterdam, is clear from the technical drawing he reproduced as plate XLIV: 'Het Schip op tzy' (the ship from the side). In this drawing we see that the waterline is not parallel to the keel, indicating trim. And it is also clear from the contemporary journals I read in the archives that trim was used in Amsterdam ships.
Regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 18, 2021 12:01:35 GMT
Hello Philemon,
I think it would certainly be possible to try to do a reconstruction of the Van Yk 155' ship here, but it's up to you of course.
If I understand correctly you are still not sure how they controled the shape of the hull while building according to the Witsen method. As I tried to explain before, they were able to determine the shape of the bottom by supports in the form of posts, angled clamps and big pincers.
Mister Vos built the bottom of his Zeven Provincien with these simple but efficient tools in the 1990s. He describes his findings very well in his book of 2014.
The design aspect is a different matter. For determining the shape of the bottom, the shipbuilder must have made a design on forehand. This design was of course determined by the requests of the customer. This customer could be, for example, the VOC or the Admiralties.
What is important to understand is that the design did not depend on the way the ship had to be build. The design could be transformed into a ship independently of the building method that was used to build the ship. To say it differently: the design could be transformed into a ship by using Van Yk's frame first method, or Witsen's bottom first method. Let me explain.
The coordinates system Witsen used to register the shape of the hull of his pinas, became a much used system in the 1690s. It is very well documented for the VOC and the Admiralties. As you most certainly know both these organisations consisted of several departments, and each department had to build its own ships. Let's take the example of the VOC. The VOC consisted of different 'chambers'. When the VOC wanted to build new ships, they organised a meeting of all the master shipbuilders of the different chambers, and determined the 'certer', the contract, for the new ships. Usually a ship that had functioned well in the past was taken as an example. And here it comes, the design of this ship, its hullshape, was registered by the use of coordinates. The coordinates of the example ship were known, and could be used to build the same ship once again. Usually however, the design was changed by slightly adapting the coordinates to the new wishes of the gentlemen of the VOC. When the new coordinates were fixed, the master shipbuilders of the different chambers were able to build a ship from this information. And, they could do so independent of the ship building method they used. For example, the master shipbuilder of the Amsterdam chamber, Pool, could, working according to the Witsen-method, transform this information into a ship.
But, there's more. We know that during one of these meetings the master shipbuilder of Amsterdam, Pool, did not bring his set of coordinates of a good ship he had built in the past, but the drawing of that ship. From this it is clear that ship hulls were not only registered by coordinates but also by drawings.
From all this it is clear how hull shapes were registered in the Netherlands in the 1690s. The length of the ship was devided into 10 equal sections, and for each section the coordinates were given in tables.
But, you are trying to reconstruct the hull of a ship of the 1660s, without having these coordinates. And that is a big challenge, open to interpretation and misconceptions.
As you may know I'm working on a reconstruction of Gouden Leeuw of 1666. And, of course, I had the same problems as you are having: not enough information from the two main books from the era: Witsen and Van Yk. So what I did was visiting all possible archives in the Netherlands to find the missing link: the notebook of the shipbuilder who built Gouden Leeuw, which, ideally, would contain the coordinates for Gouden Leeuw, or its drawing. After searching for years, I had to give up. I am pretty sure this notebook, or any other, can not be found.
I am still working on the reconstruction of Gouden Leeuw, but for me it is clear that my reconstruction will always stay my personal interpretation of all the information that is available. And that information is simply not enough to be absolutely sure of my reconstruction. Life is a bitch...
And that's why we have to be very greatful of what Witsen registered for his pinas, and that he had the means to publish his registrations. It's a shame though that he chose a rather abnormal ship as an example. Its proportions are completely out of the range he himself gives as a standard. If only he would have chosen another ship as an example; Gouden Leeuw would have been the best choice of course.
Regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 16, 2021 15:44:38 GMT
Afternoon Philemon,
I have a suggestion. If I understand correctly, the ultimate goal of your quest is to reconstruct the 155' ship from Van Yk's book. I 'did' this ship as an exercise years ago, and a lot of questions came up. Probably the same questions you have now. So here is the suggestion. I think it would be a good idea to just grab the contract for this ship and try to reconstruct it here together. All possible questions will rise automatically and everybody can chip in to answer them. If you think this could be a good way forward, I suggest you make a new thread and we'll start straight away. We will leave this thread open, so we can try to answer the more general questions here.
What do you think?
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 16, 2021 11:13:40 GMT
Hello Philemon, Please allow me to take this step by step. I can of course not reply to all your posts in one time. So let me first go back to your answer to my first reply. Please give me some examples of the chine in real life Dutch shipbuilding. I gave you 3 examples of real ships without chines, now it's your turn. Point is, if you're not willing to accept there is no chine, you will not be able to design your main frame. Witsen's main frame of his pinas is a special case. Please have a look at the drawing below: On the left side of the drawing you can see what happens when you use a radius of three quarters of the width, like Witsen suggests: the radius goes through the end of the bottom of the ship. There is simply no way to make a second radius fit between the straight line of the bottom and the 3/4 radius of the side of the ship. So, what we have to do is use the three coordinates Witsen gives for the lower hull, and draw a fluent line through these three pionts. See my suggestion on the right of my drawing. When we use the 'normal' coordinates for these three points from Grebber's table, drawing a main frame is much easier than in Witsen's special case. I think this same special situation, the end of the bottom exactly at the radius of the 3/4 width, also explains why we find the chines in Witsen's illustrations. As said before, he only uses one radius in these illustrations, while he describes two. For the reliabilty of Witsen's data. Witsen is the first to give an enormous ammount of information for one ship: his pinas. For me it is quite clear that all of this data is real data, measured on the actual ship being build. Next to the information Witsen provides for his pinas, Witsen provides us with a large set of design rules the shipbuilders of his time used. But these rules were mostly rules of proportion for the ship parts, not so much for the ship design, the ship's shape. The rules Witsen gives for the ship design can also be found in the table of Grebber: proportions for length, width and depth. For keel, stem and stern, transom beam, and some coordinates for designing the main frame: end of the bottom, end of the bilge, greatest width at the required depth. That's it, for the rest it was only the shipbuilder who could make the adaptations to the ever changing requirements of the customer. To the question if the design of the main frame that Witsen shows was actually used in Dutch shipbuilding, I would like to refer to Rembrandt's painting of a shipwright, Jan Rijcksen, who has a drawing with that design in front of him. So yes, the method was used. To the question if it is possible to build a ship with the data Witsen provides, I would like to ask you which data you mean: the data Witsen provides for his pinas, or the data Witsen provides as general rules. For the first data set, the pinas data set, I would say yes, it is possible to make a good reconstruction. Witsen provides a lot of coordinates to determine the shape of the hull, and by using these coordinates a good hull can be build. Mister Ab Hoving showed this of course, by building his pinas model. For the second data set, the general rules data set, it is not so easy to make a good hull reconstruction. The amount of information, the small number of coordinates, simply leaves too much room for interpretation. You can come up with a lot of hull shapes that would fulfill these requirements. It also gives the shipbuilder a lot of freedom, and that is probably what was intended. As you have already noticed, the data in the Van Yk contract for a VOC-ship is not the same as the data we find in a warship for the King of Sweden, though both are build in the same period of our history. Changing the requirements changes the design. That's how it was, and that's how it is. Kind regards, more to come, Jules Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 15, 2021 12:59:06 GMT
Hello Philemon, Let's get back to the first question of the 6th of February. How was the shape of the bottom of the ship controlled when building according to the method Witsen describes? First of all I think it is important to mention that the chine (knikspant) you describe as a result of Witsen's method was never there in the first place. We know several wrecks which have been built according to this method that do not show the chine. To give a couple of examples: Vasa, E81 and wreck B&W5 in Christianshavn. Here is a representation of B&W5 from Lemée's book, page 186: But, the figure Z you show from Witsen's book actually shows a chine. The chine in this figure Z is the result of a drawing method in which Witsen uses only one arc and one straight line. When we look at the figures directly above figure Z, the figures W and V, we see that two arcs and a straight line are used to make the shape, and as a result of this there is no chine. And this agrees with what he describes in his text, two arcs and a straight line, and this is what we see in the wrecks described above. Why Witsen decided to use a single arc in illustration Z? Good question. It certainly is easier to draw only one arc, but it is not what he actually describes in his text and shows in other figures. Over time it resulted in a lot of confusion. That the chine was not wanted is clear from from a remark he makes on page 48, I: "Nu bevint men, schepen met kringstukkige deelen de sterckste te zijn, waer van in dien tijt het tegengestelde wierd gelooft. Hierom bouwden zy hun schepen plat, en hoekigh buitewaerts." (Now we know ships have to be round to be strong, they believed the opposite, so they built their ships flat and with chines.) And Witsen also describes how you could prevent the chine while working according to his method, page 67, I: "Wanneer het schip wijder is als de proportie of even-maet hier gegeven, dan laet men de laeste vlackgangh wat rijzen, als anderzints wel zoude geschieden, op dat met de kimme wel moge over-een-komen, en niet zy gelijk een trogh." (When the ship is wider than the proportion given here, one raises (tilts) the last board of the bottom a bit more as otherwise, so it agrees with the bilge, and is not like a trough." It is clear from this that chines were not wanted when building according to Witsen's method, and that a ship with a chine was considered to be misshapen in Witsen's time. For the control of the shape of the bottom posts placed on the floor of the wharf were used as supports for the bottom boards. The boards themselves were fixed to eachother with temporary clamps which were nailed to them. These clamps could have been straight or could have had an angle, so the boards would make an angle to each other according to the angle of the clamps. The boards were also held in position by pincers. These pincers could be equiped with parts to keep the boards at an angle as well. The use of these three supports was enough to keep the bottom in a stable position when the first frame parts were placed in the bottom. This method is of course very well explained by Witsen, but also by Vos and Lemée. Here is a drawing of Vos, page 69, fig. 4. I hope this answers your first question; more to come, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 15, 2021 8:38:01 GMT
Hello Amateur (and Philemon),
Apologies, of course, accepted. I understand now what you were trying to say. I know the other forums well. But, as you might have noticed, the people from the german forum who are interested in Dutch shipbuilding, and who speak english, came over here to have their discussions. And since Peter D.G. stopped publishing his Hohenzollern-model-build there, don't know what happened there, there's not a lot going on considering Dutch shipbuilding. As Philemon rightly remarks, the American site is excellent for English and French stuff. Dutch stuff, not so much: they actually do not care much. What I would like to see is that people who are really interested come over here. You are contributing on both forums. Invite them over here! Promote us, not them!
Regards,
Jules
PS now I really have to start reading all the stuff Philemon put out there.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Feb 13, 2021 22:43:54 GMT
Hello Philemon, Sorry to be so late in replying, I just saw your posts. Interesting questions and views. Give me some time to respond. At least, that is if Amateur agrees with me responding to your questions. To Amateur. What are you doing? Are you actually telling people to stay away from this forum? And you think it is best to do so in a thread that I created!? Thank you very much my friend. Regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Dec 28, 2020 12:13:52 GMT
Hello Rein, Yes, you're right, I've noticed the broad filling board on the Hohenzollern-model as well. And I also noticed that the head of the Hohenzollern-model is indeed different from the head of the Gent-model. But, what I meant to say was that the drawing of the front view of the model would suggest that here was room for placing a chase port in the right position in the beakhead bulkhead anyway. See the red circle I added to that drawing: Would you say that this is a mistake in the drawing, and that it would not have been possible to position such a chase port in the beakhead bulkhead? Regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Dec 27, 2020 14:35:17 GMT
Hello Rein,
Moving the chase guns to the beakhead bulkhead to shoot over the main rail was, for as far as I know, a common feature in shipbuilding in this period. We see it, for example, in contemporary Dutch models like Hollandia and William Rex. And we see it in England and France as well: Deane's doctrine and the Album the Colbert show the same feature. And we also see it in the Zeven Provincien reconstructions of Dik and Blom.
And now you tell me this is not the case in the Hohenzollern-model. But, when I look at the drawing of the front view of the model on Tafel II of Winter's book, I can see it would be possible to move a chase guns in this position, and that it would be possible to fire these guns over the main rail. Do you think this is a drawing fault? It would not be the first, but we better make sure.
Do you know if a front view photo of the Hohenzollern-model was taken by Winter, and if it is, could you post it here?
About the vases on the rails. For me it is very strange to find them on a Dutch ship. I never saw them on other contemporary models or in contemporary paintings. The English embellished the outside of the railings of their ships, but the Dutch did not. If these vases dropped of the model and were misplaced during a repair afterwards... who can tell for sure?
Kind regards,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Dec 24, 2020 12:31:25 GMT
Hi all, Just one picture for Christmas. Enjoy! Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Dec 10, 2020 14:31:10 GMT
Hello,
I admit the fenders are hard to find on drawings or pictures of Dutch ships from this period, but it seems they were used anyway.
Rein, I am not so sure I can find the small protrusion of the deckplanks of the 'luizenplecht' on the port side as well. And I am not so sure the small sliver of wood on the starboard side is actually a protruding deckplank. If it is a protruding deckplank, I think it is hard to make such a detail in a model, harder than making the 'normal' construction.
The v-shaped wooden contraptions in front of the scupper holes are a unique thing for the model. I never read anything about the use of them, and never saw them on other models. I can, with a lot of imagination, find a reason for them though. As mentioned already, normally the scupper holes would end in a hose made of leather or sail cloth nailed around the scupper hole. I can imagine that this construction was rather vulnerable to waves crashing into them, and that some sort of protection was needed. Maybe the streamlined v-shaped construction would provide that protection.
Will post some more photos of the model next time,
Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Dec 1, 2020 19:44:33 GMT
Hello, Fenders. Let me turn the question around. Why do you think the model does not show 17th century fenders but later ones? Why do you think these have to be later additions? For example, here is another example of the use of fenders on an etch of Nooms: 'two Dutch frigates'. And, Nooms was so kind to show the nails which attach the fenders to the hull. About Witsen's text describing them and how they were attached, 'werden buitewaerts tegen de scheeps zijde dikmael balcken geslagen', really means attached, not suspended by ropes. As you rightly say Jan, sails were 'aangeslagen' to the spars, but not 'geslagen'. That is a big difference. For the attachment of sails to the spar Witsen uses 'aenslaen' (p.482, II), not 'slaan'. For the fenders suspended by ropes Witsen uses the word 'wrijfhouten', 'rub-woods' (p.516, I). Since he does not use this word for the fenders he describes on page 62, he must not have meant the rope suspended ones but other ones: the ones we see drawn by Nooms and the ones we see on the model. Luizenplecht. Ah, finally I get it; you think the slice of wood is the end of the deck. I made this sketch to check if I understand correctly. So you think this is the construction method used for the model? The frames are 'cut' by the deck planks and the upper part of the frame is placed on top of the deck planks. But, for as far as I can tell, we can only find that slice of wood on one side of the model. Would this mean that we have two different constructions on one model? On one side of the model the frames are cut, on the other side of the model the frames are not cut? Please expand. Kind regards, Jules
|
|
|
Post by jules on Nov 30, 2020 15:25:04 GMT
Hello,
A lot going on now. So here we go.
Small deck / luizenplecht. I still do not get what you two seem to see as strange in the model. According to me normal construction would be: the upper frameparts (stutten) next to the stem reach approximately the same height as the stem and their tops are covered with the deckplanks. The upper frame parts more to the side of the ship reach a greater height and support the cathead. The deckplanks end against these frame parts; they do not cut the frame parts to reach the outside of the ship. As Witsen says: "the cathead is supported by the middle of the straight frame" (p.90, I). I think this can also be seen in the two pictures of the small deck of the Gent-model I included in my last post, and in Abb.11 of Winter's Hohenzollern-book. If the deckplanking would protrude I would see the ends of the planking on the outside of the ship, and I don't. So, what do you guys see that I don't see?
Maybe we are looking at supports for anchor flukes, to me it sounds likely, and that does not exclude the other anchor support in the waist of the ship. They can both be present at the same time.
Fenders. Witsen says they were 'geslagen' to the side of the ship. This means they were not hanging, but fastened/attached. Thanks for showing the pictures of the hanging variant though.
The horizonal pieces of wood on the bulkheads were always interpreted as steps by me. They look the same as the steps on the outside of the ship, so I thought they were used as steps to get to the 'vinkenet'.
The suggestion that the box was an ammo-box, does not explain the hole, and would be dangerous. The ammo-boxes on the inside of the ship were considered as dangerous too, because a hit in that box would send the contents of the box, roundshot, flying over the deck. Witsen says that's why these boxes were emptied before the battle and the roundshot was placed in rope coils on the deck (p.497, II).
The 6 ships for France. I think these ships were not 3-deckers because the French ordered two-deckers. The contracts, preserved in the archives of the city of Amsterdam, mention two decks and a 'vinkenet'. Rein, are you saying that the two doors in the bulkhead were used as an entrance to the 'vinkenet'? I think the doors are too wide apart for this; they are placed besides the 'vinkenet'. I think they are in the same position as the holes in the bulkhead of the Gent-model. They would give acces to the second deck then, not to the 'vinkenet'. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
The 'vinkenet' was often removed and stored in the hold. It was not a permanent construction. Maybe that's why there aren't any special doors in the bulkhead to give access to this 'net'.
Regards,
Jules
|
|