|
Post by amateur on Oct 13, 2016 9:03:24 GMT
Thanks! Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Oct 13, 2016 8:20:21 GMT
Do i understand that when lowered, the shrouds are without tension, and even completely loose?
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Oct 12, 2016 20:25:03 GMT
What i do not understand, is how the topmast shrouds could be tensioned (as shown in the painting)
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 21, 2016 14:05:42 GMT
I see what you mean, but as you yourself showed us quite convincinly not to trust what we see in pictures.... Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 16, 2016 13:24:38 GMT
Hi Jules,
Another question on your book: any idea's yet on the how and when?
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 14, 2016 20:19:12 GMT
Hi Jules,
That will be an interesting book. (Will it ever be finished and printed, or does your research keeps showing new results?) Are you also trying to do a full reconstruction of the ship?
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 14, 2016 11:59:16 GMT
Just a question: the shipwreck so1 from the scheurrak has been quite well documented. Inthis cas the whole ship-side has been preserved. Is there any evidence of tilted frames here? (Yes I know, it is quite well before Vasa, so it cant contribute to the discussion on the 1670's style)
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 11, 2016 19:51:48 GMT
Hi Jules,
Two questions on Witsen, both perhaps a bit naive.... The picture shows the liggers to be at 90 degree angle. The discussion was also/mainly on tilted oplangen, but there are no oplangen visible in this picture. How can this drawing be proof of parallel frames? Second, even more naive, Witsen does not describe tilted frames, but as far a I could find, he does not describe parrallel frames either. So,even if we take him as an important source, how can we be sure that he uses parallel framing? (Or did I miss the exact textfragment?)
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 6, 2016 6:24:34 GMT
Hi jules,
I admit, the sawing has to be in close cooperation with the wharf, not neccesarily at the wharf.
With respect to the tapering: there is no way to prevent this extreme banana-shape, when you want all packed very close together. (Unless you opt for a system with filling-pieces higher up the ships side. But then, what is the use of this extreme tapering...... Because this explicit mentioning of bilge and scheerstrook, i don,t see why he should mean front and aft. On almost the same page he is very specific over the placement of the forwarrd and aft frames. Can't understand why he should be so sloppy here.......
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 5, 2016 18:21:26 GMT
Scanning through Van IJk, I came across a few lines on the 'Oplangen'. (p78). I wonder: Is van Ijk describing tapered frames here?
I quote (in Dutch): Yder Legger heeft twee Oplangen nodig: Houten die van vooren tot achteren Schips Zyden formeeren, en met Haar ondereinden, voor een groot deel op de Leggers rusten. Haare dikte in de Kimmen is een tiende, en op de Scheerstrook een vierde minder als de leggers op de Kiel. Na Reden van haarde Dikte, verminderd desselvs Breedte: ook geevdmen agt op de zwaarheid der Krommers, uit welke zy werden gezaagd; want door somtijds een Duim van gestelde breedte af te wyken, kan 't gebeuren, dat ook sonder eenig Schips nadeel, uit een Krommer, een geheele plaat meerder, tot 's bouwmeesters merkelijk profijt, werd gesneden, als anders, de breedte juist in acht genomen sijnde, niet doenlijk soude wesen.
IN my translation (names of frameparts not translated) that reads as: ON each legger, we need two oplangen. These parts define the shape of the ships sides. The lower end of these oplangen sits on the leggers. Their thickness in the bilges is one-tenth, and at the scheerstrook one quarter less that the thickness of the legger on the keel. Their width should diminish at the same rate as their thickness. The shipwright should pay attention to the thickness of the wood he is using. Sometimes it is possible to deviate up to an inch in thickness, without harming the ships integrity, which allows the shipwright - to his profit - make an additional plaat [plank ?] compared to the number possible if he would strictly adhere to the exact width.
In my interpretation this means that the frameparts taper, in thickness and width between bilge and scheerstrook (lower wale). They also taper considerable amount: one quarter of the thickness of the legger is certainly more than a few milimeters. Therefore, the taper in width coudl also be considerable (even if it is less than the taper in thickness) Van IJk also states that the shipwright should be sensible, as slight deviations from the 'standard' measurements leads to less spillage of material, and therefore increase in his profits (without any consequences for the ship). That does suggest that the frameparts were sawn at the wharf, and at not completely standardized measurements. Or am I now way off in my layman interpretation of Van Ijk?
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Sept 5, 2016 6:51:09 GMT
Hallo Peter,
The 'oplangen' were not placed against the inside of the planking: after the bottom was build, a few oplangen were erected, to which the sheerstrook was placed. The remainder of the oplangen were placed to the inside of this scheerstrook: on the lower end tighlty fitted between the buikstukken in the 'kim', and on the upper side aginst the scheerstrook. Only after the oplangen were placed, the wales were fitted. Folowed by the planking. (As far as I understand witsen and van ijk)
There is a very nice set of etchings done by Sieuwert van der Meulen, in which he illustrates the building, use (and demise) of a ship. There is a drawing showing the first stage (bottom, consisting of planks, clamped together, without any inhouten), See here: www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/zoeken/objecten?q=sieuwert+van+de+rmeulen&p=2&ps=12&st=OBJECTS&ii=5#/RP-P-OB-6658,17 and the second stage, where the inhouten are completely build up, on a fully planked bottom/bilge. See here: www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/RP-P-OB-6659 Also visible in this series: the ship went into the water, before the upper parts are closed: www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/zoeken/objecten?q=sieuwert+van+de+rmeulen&p=2&ps=12&st=OBJECTS&ii=6#/RP-P-OB-6660,18 Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Aug 23, 2016 15:05:22 GMT
I always think (but are by no means sure) that it is straight, and following the curvature of the hull to some extent.
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Aug 23, 2016 6:53:08 GMT
A question with respect to that possibility of distortion. We are looking at the close-by pictures, that are merged together to a sideview. There are also some larger distance pictures. When there is distortion, the distortion should be different in these two pictures, as a result of differences in camera sition. If thereis a frame tilt, it should also be visible in the larger distance side-views. Problem is: the sideview in the book is a bit blurry, so I cant discover the nail pattern.... If wedo not see the tilt, we know there is distortion in one, probably both,pictures. In that case, just using thepictures as conclusive proof (no matter what we want to prove) will bedifficult.
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Aug 21, 2016 11:49:27 GMT
Hi Jules,
Athough I agreewith you onthe possibility of distortion, it can noyt explain the difference in the tilt of the nail patterns in the vertuining just above the side-gallieri s. distortion as you show, is a gradual distortion, becoming stronger at the outer sides of the picture. So, it can be that we overestimate the level of tilt (or even see tilt where there is none), but it can not explain why some of the nail-rows show tilt, while others do not. (Or am i missing something?)
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Aug 17, 2016 7:54:10 GMT
Hi Jules, Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked, was that Peter quite st ongly focusses onthe HZ, while we can not check how this model was build. As the Gemt model still survives, a study of the Gent model is a way of escaping the problem of the relationbetween nailpatterns and actual construction of the model. It still does not answer the question whether or not the model can be taken as proof of actualbuilding practice. There are enough models that looklike good representations, but cannot be an actual scale model (william rex for instance looks like a truerepresentation, but can not be: calculations indicate that thehull has not enough buoyancy to carry the rig) The problem of drawings and paintings is that we do not know what the knowledge of the maker was, and more, what his intentions were. E.g. The Stu ckenburgdrawing: was it drawn as an idealized world, or did it actually match existing practice? We do not know. All the drawings of ships in the process of building give a nice view of how it looked, but I don't think we can draw conclusive evidence on details. (We can on he general things: looking at allthe drawn evidence, we can conclude that the ports existed in a rather early stage of the building process, and not, as sometimes stated, only to be hacked in as the last stage of building.) But on issues like the position of the actualinhouten, I very much doubt. As far as I know, the literature does not explicitly describe the way these inhout n were aligned, so perhaps it is as someone (werner) in a german formum wrote: as long as we do ot find contemporary written proof, we can only guess, and have to be carefull in ourconclusions. Butthen, I'm only a layman in these issues, only asking questions Jan
|
|