The boyer by Åke Rålamb 1691 – shaping Dutch hulls using graphic methods

.​

Jules, if you think about it carefully, you will surely come to the conclusion that my interpretation does not contest Witsen's work at all. Au contraire! This makes it even more credible in this respect, taking into account almost complete lack of extant plans drawn on paper, and that for tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of ships actually built. For it's not just about the Dutch specifics, but of the entire continent.

However, let me also say that possible differences in interpretations, for example between you, Ab and me, are actually very beneficial. Without such differences, we would perhaps still be living on a flat earth floating in the primeval ocean at the center of the universe, and perhaps not even get to that stage. Although, regrettably, I see some people of the opposite general attitude, but that's already politics, which, I believe, we certainly do not want here...

Fine, I think we should stop for now, otherwise I'll never start working on the Rålamb's fluyt. It takes time...

Best wishes and see you in the next thread,
Waldemar

.​
 
.​

@Jules van Beek

I changed my mind Jules, you lost my invite just like you were banned from another forum for your behaviour. You are fiercely adhering to your manipulative methods, which I will not tolerate. I will ask the moderators to remove your posts from my threads in the future if you do not comply. Just go away with your obsessions and aggressive fiddling.

.​
 
- Waldemar - said:
.​

Jules, if you think about it carefully, you will surely come to the conclusion that my interpretation does not contest Witsen's work at all. Au contraire! This makes it even more credible in this respect, taking into account almost complete lack of extant plans drawn on paper, and that for tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of ships actually built. For it's not just about the Dutch specifics, but of the entire continent.

However, let me also say that possible differences in interpretations, for example between you, Ab and me, are actually very beneficial. Without such differences, we would perhaps still be living on a flat earth floating in the primeval ocean at the center of the universe, and perhaps not even get to that stage. Although, regrettably, I see some people of the opposite general attitude, but that's already politics, which, I believe, we certainly do not want here...

Fine, I think we should stop for now, otherwise I'll never start working on the Rålamb's fluyt. It takes time...

Best wishes and see you in the next thread,
Waldemar

.​
Click to expand...
Hi Waldemar,

I would love to see you working on Ralambs fluyt.
Currently working on a shell first build of the Ghost ship or Zwaan of the 2nd half of the 17th century. Your hull geometry will be very interesting.
 
.​

Many thanks, Maarten. Of course I know and I'm closely watching the progress of building your wonderful model. Right now I'm translating the description of plate G of the Rålamb's work, that is, for the fluyt. :)

.​
 
.​
:) Funny.

* * *​

Perhaps prematurely, nevertheless, it must already be shown in this thread about the Dutch boyer. Well, during the initial analysis of the draught of the Rålamb's fluyt, it turned out that the width of the "flat" as drawn on the plan view is much larger than the actual, or final width of the "flat" in the ship as built (by the way, the similar method of creating the shape of the main frame as shown below is also quite typical for other authors in other methods).

This means that the method conceived by me and presented in post #18, using longitudinal, „hanging” guides along both sides of the hull under construction and transverse strings acting as templates for the correct laying of the „flat”, gains much credibility in this way. More details will be shown in a separate thread concerning specifically the fluyt.


ViewCapture20230729_120348.jpg


ViewCapture20230729_120837.jpg

.​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top