|
|
Post by amateur on Mar 24, 2021 16:49:54 GMT
A bit disappointig: looks like a cheap version of the Batavia.
I know that much work has gone into these animations, but I don't think they do add anything to the knowledge and understanding of shipbuilding.
(And I do not have an opinion on the correctness of what is shown there)
Jan
|
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 25, 2021 9:04:13 GMT
Hello Philemon,
My book is an ungoing project. It is getting bigger and bigger. Publishing date: just before I die. I just hope I get the timing right.
Both Witsens, 1671 and 1690, are in my 'library' now. I was talking about the days when I was still a poor, young man.
You're absolutely right: let's stop talking Hoving, let's start talking shipbuilding.
Thanks for confirming that they could build every hull shape they wanted. It is a controversial statement you know.
I understand now that you are writing a book as well. So, let me ask, what do you want from me on this forum? Do you want to ask me questions? Do you want to discuss certain subjects? I already offered to work on the reconstruction of the 155-footer here. Just let me know, so I can prepare something.
Yes, I walked through the pinas. Impressions? You go first.
Hello Amateur,
I know Rene is not Ab's employee. He should be though. If Rene is doing all this for free, he must be completely mad. Ab's work strongly depends on Rene's work, as it depended on the work of Cor Emke. Ab owes Rene big, big time.
Jules
|
|
|
|
Post by philemon1948 on Mar 25, 2021 13:12:11 GMT
Hello Jan,
I agree. You'd better have a look at the virtual tour through the Batavia. The presentation of the RCE is static and two dimensional. And you learn nothing about the process of shipbuilding. I think it is a missed opportunity when you know, as you state properly, how much effort it costs to make a digital presentation like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by philemon1948 on Mar 25, 2021 13:22:32 GMT
Hello Jules,
It might be fun to take certain topics, especially the topics I am unsure about. You know as well as I do, describing something as complicated as the building of these large vessels is impossible to discuss in its completeness on a forum like this. But to take a specific topic should be possible. I will think about a first proposal. And if others want to join in, the more fun it will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by philemon1948 on Mar 25, 2021 16:20:01 GMT
Hello Jules,
I would like to propose to choose topics who are related to the 155 feet ship Cornelis van Yk describes in one of his certers. As you mentioned you have given this ship some thought too. This ship was probably the ‘Eendracht’, a merchant ship built in 1664, destined for Indonesië, according to the ‘VOCsite’. My aim is to determine shape and size of every construction piece using the general and specific descriptions Cornelis gives. As a shipwright who wants to build a ship you have to know shape and size before you can make it. I make a 3D drawing, scale 1 to 1, in the computer which forces you to establish the shape and size very precise as well as the proper dimensions of the connections between the pieces.
If I am not mistaken and if I read Cornelis van Yk well, the following understandings are all interconnected: the dimensions of the keel, the tapering of the keel, the rabbet in the keel, rocker of the keel and the garboard strakes. These understandings also influence the shape of the sternpost. The first thing I would like to propose as discussion topic is the tapering of the keel. The keel tapers in width and height. In width towards fore and aft, in height mainly towards aft. The width and height of this keel are not given in the certer but you can calculate these by using the formula Cornelis gives: 1 inch per seven feet ships length. This yields 155/7=22,14 inches, 0,57 meter. Since the keel of the 154 feet ship I use as reference is square, as many keels of the ships Cornelis describes are, I decided to give make the keel of the ‘Eendracht’ square also. The width and height of the keel of this 154 feet ship is mentioned in the certer: 22 inches square which fits the formula of Cornelis perfectly: 154/7=22. The measurements of the keel fore and aft are the same as the thickness of stem and stern. Fore: 0,41 and aft 0,44 meter. This keel does not taper in height towards fore as most keels Cornelis mentions don’t. The height aft is derived from the 154 feet ship: 16 inches, 0,41 meter. The only thing you have to determine yourself is the length of the pieces. The ‘Eendracht’ is the only ship where Cornelis mentions how many parts were used to make this keel: three. The lengths of the different parts is never mentioned nor how they are distributed. So I chose three lengths, all three different with the aim to be able to give a motivation why I chose a certain distribution. The lengths are:10,65, 13,83 meter en 17,84 meter. The length of the joints between these three pieces is given in the certer: 10 feet, 2,83 meter and with ends of 4 inches, 103 millimeter. So the questions are: how would you distribute the keel parts and when does the tapering of these parts start?
PS, should we start a new thread?
|
|
ara
Junior Member
Posts: 69 
|
Post by ara on Jul 22, 2021 18:53:31 GMT
I have a question for Fred Hocker: On Vasa´s wing transom we see two different sitting knees on its upper surface. Is this because of the lack of a suitable piece of wood for the second knee, or because of a different workparty with a different building tradition? Thank you.   |
|
