Design Noah Ark

[Sea Skimmer]

In Clive Cussler's wonderfully pulp "Atlantis Found", the genetically bred nazi badguys plan to use four of those "Freedom Ships" to survive the flood in a nod to the ark.

Well Freedom ship would snap in half from wave action if it was actually built. The scam artists who came up with the idea had it designed like an apartment building bolted to a barge, and did not even use a marine engineer.

As for a submarine, the best idea would probably be to simply connect several pressure hulls together in a huge cluster and then relying on ballast tanks for stability. Since there is no need for any hydrodynamically streamlined hull as the boat need not move, it can be designed using modular sections that are easy to mass-produce.

The boat sure does need to move unless you want undersea currents throwing it around anyway they please. The streamline outer casing of a submarine is also protecting a fair bit of the ballets system, you just cant do without it.

[Patrick Degan]

The crux of the matter is NOT whether or not the ship is built of wood, strawmanderer.

The crux of the matter is how this applies to a Noah's Ark experiment, you illiterate fuck.

Wooden ships are "part and parcel" to your claim, liar, and the claim is there for anyone to see for themselves.

Given how you've hopelessly mangled the point I had originally been making, I wouldn't be calling anybody "illiterate" if I were you, Frankie.

Uh huh. Try mounting 100 or more guns on a carrack, dense one. Try cramming 500-1000 men and their supplies on one. Sort of ties in to my entire point about larger ships being needed, which would have required more sail to propel them, which led to inevitable and necessary increase of topweight, which evidently still eludes your grasp.

Not only did carracks carry crews well in excess of 500 men, not only did they carry guns far in excess of 100 (small as they were), and that from before the turn of the 16th century, but it was the carrack that introduced an entirely new form of rigging ships, the three and four masted full rigged ship.

A revolution in naval gunnery was realised with the carrack, a revolution in rigging ships was realised with the carrack; the topweight of those innovations in the case of the Mary Rose doomed her, and it generally led to the type's demise as a warship.

Your ignorance of the subject is profound, and your conclusions couldn't be more wrong.

You're being very disingenuous. More than half the guns carried by HMS Mary Rose one of the largest carracks built, were light-calibre pieces for close-range fire. (though I did fail to specify type of gunnery on this point) Only twenty of her guns could be considered "heavy" and were in the range of 12-15 pdrs. Her broadside would be inadequate compared to that of any decent-sized frigate of a century or two later. Further, even the largest carrack doesn't come up to half the size, tonnage, area of canvas, or broadside weight-of-metal as a typical 18th century line-battleship.

Oh, and BTW, you're wrong about why the Mary Rose sank. Her topweight did not doom her as much as her waterline gunports being left open while attempting a turn, which let the ocean in.

I await your argument on how increased size requires increased topweight.

This has to be about the first truly stupid thing you've said in the course of this discussion. To outline the point, imagine a carrack's rig employed to drive the thrice-as-massive HMS Victory. It's possible, of course, assuming you don't care if the ship crawls like a scow. Greater speed required a greater area of canvas. It also should really be unnecessary to point out that increased topweight in masts, yards, and canvas is an inevitable consequence of larger rigs for larger vessels. As Eric W. Sager points out in Maritime Capital, The Shipping Industry In Atlantic Canada 1820-1914 (Eric Sager and Gerald Panting, 1990 McGill Queen's Press ISBN 0773515208):

The connection between rig and tonnage is related to the size of vessel that could be efficiently propelled by each sail plan. A vessel of 100 to 110 feet in length could be propelled efficiently enough by the sails carried on two masts. But as hulls lengthened, more propulsive power was sought, and the first response was to increase the height of masts and the size of sails.

But this change entailed increases in labour and sometimes a cost in seaworthiness: higher masts meant extra caps and trestle-trees and extra weight aloft; they also meant separately fitted masts which had to be taken down in heavy weather, to reduce windage aloft, and this required extra labour.

Understand what that says? Get the point now? Or are we going to get more of your handwaving in response?

Again, look who's talking. My point, in regards to that area of the discussion was:

Blah, blah, blah; you virtually repeat what I say with an opposite, false, conclusion.

What's next?

Sentence diagrams?

In your case, sentence-diagrammes just might be necessary as it's beginning to appear.

It is when it's used by you as an excuse to handwave away the fact that shipbuilding practises up to that point very largely did not proceed from a full understanding of the principles involved and resisted innovation.

How that has anything to do with any point raised only exists in your bizarre excuse for a mind.

The dangers of topweight are one of the most basic questions addressed in ship design, and were understood in a practical sense long before the 19th century, criticism of the method in which those practices were realised could NOT be more irrelevant.

You are conflating separate parts of my argument. The point raised about shipbuilders not having a full understanding of principle was raised in reply to your blanket statement that 6000 years of shipbuilding had worked well enough with what they were doing —to which I had pointed out that mere rote-copying of patterns had stifled any serious understanding of underlying principles and even less serious investigation into the matter. Very relevant, no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

Sayeth the man who's entire support for his "argument" on that particular point is "Speculation is evidence, I need nothing more".

Outrageous lie, baldfaced and so easily shown to be one that I'm almost embarrased for you.

Scroll.
Up.

And when we do, we find you saying, in response to a demand for evidence for the man's mercenary motivations, this:

Considering the brain-dead irrational vehemence with which he's attacking the propellor, it is FAR from unreasonable to assume he could be writing a smear piece for financial gain, especially considering the time in which he's writing.

For which the support you give is:

It's a reasonable assumption in lieu of contradictory information, and in light of the competitive and cutthroat mercenary atmosphere of British shipbuilding.

. . .

When confronted with irrational behavior, idly speculating as to it's cause comes naturally.

Those are your own words, aren't they?

So, from YOU, we have "it's reasonable to assume" because "it's a reasonable assumption" because "idly speculating as to its cause comes naturally".

Translation from Hipper-speak: "Specualtion is evidence, I need nothing more".

That wouldn't be accepted as a standard of proof on anything from anybody else around here and I see no reason why it should be granted to you.

L-O-G-I-C, aquaint yourself with it.

Try taking your own advice.

Even for your diminishing standards in the course of this increasingly silly discussion, that is pathetic indeed. Not only it is rather obvious that Capt. Hoseason's letter is speaking of wave-induced roll, which anybody with basic reading-comprehension could induce, you attempting to again fill in a great gaping void in the evidence with even more speculation smacks of outright dishonesty on your part.

Complex cause.

Do you forget your own Victorian piece on ship stability and oscillation and the by no means universal hull ratios and weight distributions needed to experience that oscillation?

Which defeats the essential observations... how, exactly?

So I must insist, if you please: Debate Rule Number Six.

For what? That the fool made a vague remark that you insist on applying specifically?

You said, in response to a demand for evidence for the man's mercenary motivations, this:

Considering the brain-dead irrational vehemence with which he's attacking the propellor, it is FAR from unreasonable to assume he could be writing a smear piece for financial gain, especially considering the time in which he's writing.

For which the support you give is:

It's a reasonable assumption in lieu of contradictory information, and in light of the competitive and cutthroat mercenary atmosphere of British shipbuilding.

. . .

When confronted with irrational behavior, idly speculating as to it's cause comes naturally.

Those are your own words, aren't they?

So, from YOU, we have "it's reasonable to assume" because "it's a reasonable assumption" because "idly speculating as to its cause comes naturally".

Translation from Hipper-speak: "Specualtion is evidence, I need nothing more".

Translation from Hipper-speak: "Speculation is evidence, I need nothing else".

Such a lying piece of shit...

Yes, you are. Very sad, actually,

You said, in response to a demand for evidence for the man's mercenary motivations, this:

Considering the brain-dead irrational vehemence with which he's attacking the propellor, it is FAR from unreasonable to assume he could be writing a smear piece for financial gain, especially considering the time in which he's writing.

For which the support you give is:

It's a reasonable assumption in lieu of contradictory information, and in light of the competitive and cutthroat mercenary atmosphere of British shipbuilding.

. . .

When confronted with irrational behavior, idly speculating as to it's cause comes naturally.

Those are your own words, aren't they?

So, from YOU, we have "it's reasonable to assume" because "it's a reasonable assumption" because "idly speculating as to its cause comes naturally".

Translation from Hipper-speak: "Specualtion is evidence, I need nothing more".

FOUR steam engines drove Great Eastern's paddles; a single engine drove her screw. No screw propulsion system then in existence could have moved an 32,000 ton vessel.

No, moron; TWO inverted, twin cylinder oscillating engines drove the paddles, and a SINGLE horizontal direct acting engine drove the screw.

Four, according to the Maritime Digital Encyclopedia.

The two paddle engines produced a combined output of 3670hp, while the single screw engine produced 3900hp.

The single screw engine was nearly twice as powerful as a single paddle engine; what I was addressing..well, refuting, actually, was your ignorant assertion that the screw was an auxilliary.

And yet, the screw could not have developed sufficient revolutions to move the bulk of the Great Eastern in anything other than a calm sea at best and at that only at a crawl, no matter how much power was applied. The technology which would have rendered paddlewheels redundant in a vessel that massive did not exist in 1858.

For "strident defence" read "clarification" —something which you not only avoid but are going to great lengths to obsfucate.

While this statement is really beneath comment, I have to point out that you lie repeatedly when pressed.

Funny coming from you, actually, since you've been doing nothing but that for two pages in this thread now.

YOUR accusation in regards to Hoseason's statements were that he was stating that "screw propulsion is the CAUSE of a ship's rolling". The entire purpose of my quoting the above extract from his letter was to demonstrate that this was not what the man was saying at all. At all.

It is exactly what he said, previously in the letter....but at least you aren't claiming he was correct with this spew.

If you say so, Gracie...

He makes that unequivocal assertion in the context of claiming engineers ignore seamen's experience; his completely incorrect assertions about paddle steamers possesing superior stability to propellor driven ships comes paragraphs later!

Is he saying "the screw causes a ship to roll"? No, he is most definitely not. I don't know how you read anything else into the text of the letter.

A partial concession on that point —I was indeed careless. As to the rest, however, the "antique work" you dismiss so readily cites the limitations of maritime steam technology as they existed at the time and chronicles the necessary advances which took twenty or so years after the launch of Great Britain to be realised. Which did impede the full exploitation of the technology.

Thank you for conceding that, but despite being factually correct, Great Britain being primitive in comparison to later examples is a Red Herring.

Considering that what we're discussing in this tangent in part is the limitations of the technology at the time, it is not.

You mean by saying that your speculations count as sufficient proof on the matter? Laughable on its face.

Why do I have to even go so far as to point out that I've never said anything even remotely resembling that; doesn't lying so blatantly embarrass you?

Oh really?

You said, in response to a demand for evidence for the man's mercenary motivations, this:

Considering the brain-dead irrational vehemence with which he's attacking the propellor, it is FAR from unreasonable to assume he could be writing a smear piece for financial gain, especially considering the time in which he's writing.

For which the support you give is:

It's a reasonable assumption in lieu of contradictory information, and in light of the competitive and cutthroat mercenary atmosphere of British shipbuilding.

. . .

When confronted with irrational behavior, idly speculating as to it's cause comes naturally.

Those are your own words, aren't they?

So, from YOU, we have "it's reasonable to assume" because "it's a reasonable assumption" because "idly speculating as to its cause comes naturally".

Translation from Hipper-speak: "Specualtion is evidence, I need nothing more".

You made a claim.

And your pitiable misunderstanding of the conditional nature of that claim, and your fallacious demands that a or b = a + b have gotten all the answer they require, you retarded, anti-logic motherfucker.

Just because you're incapable of understanding the nature of a claim does not mean that I am required to satisfy your lack of comprehension.

No, a claim means a statement which can be backed by testable evidence. Not by "idle speculation which comes naturally".

An amusing statement indeed coming from a man who couldn't even be bothered to know which officer of the Royal Navy he was slandering.

You are capable of taking a hint only by the application of a ball-peen hammer between the eyes...

A therapy you are in far greater need of, it seems.

J. C. Hoseason was William Hoseason's brother

Wrong.

William Hoseason's parents were William Hoseason Sr. and Maria Hill Hoseason; sisters Ursula, Maria, Elizabeth, and Augusta. No brothers. John Cochrane Hoseason was born seven years later than his cousin in 1809 on the opposite side of the Atlantic to parents Thomas and Angelica Hoseason; brother George, sister Maria Ursula. They did not, as far as we know, grow up together.

Shifting the ground of your Appeal to Motive argument from mercenary interest to avenging a brother —who turns out wasn't his brother. I'll be generous though and take it for a tacit concession of the former claim, which after all is supported by nothing more than "idle speculation which comes naturally".

"Antiquated bullfuckery" eh? And in what way is the information regarding the development and performances of steam propulsion outlined by Thurston invalidated by virtue of being written when those developments had or were just occurring?

The point is that citing work more than a century old when more recent work is available is senseless.

Which invalidates the information in said work... how, exactly?

The only "A or B" condition recognised by the rule you say you helped write is: "you either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence". You have done neither.

You can demand that a or b = a + b to your heart's content; it only shows how little comprehension of the most basic concepts of logic you posses.

Funny coming from you, actually.

Not only do you still fail to recognise that the force of wind in sail reducing roll,

Lie. I never said any such thing in the course of this thread.

and weight above the CoG dampening pendular motion are ENTIRELY different phenomena, still confusing the two,

I'm confusing nothing. But it seems you are confused between what I had actually argued and your strawmandering of my argument. I really don't think you can tell the difference anymore.

but you put responses to your repeated challenges of observations of Hoseason's letter on my fucking head?

No, what was placed "on your fucking head" was your continued manifest refusal to back a claim you made. But which you have, it appears, offered a tacit concession on.

[Frank Hipper]

Given how you've hopelessly mangled the point I had originally been making, I wouldn't be calling anybody "illiterate" if I were you, Frankie.

Predictably evasive, predictably dishonest.

You're being very disingenuous. More than half the guns carried by HMS Mary Rose one of the largest carracks built, were light-calibre pieces for close-range fire.

As to guns, I said carracks carried small ones, but the 800 ton burthen Sovereign of 1488 carried 141 guns, and the 1000 ton burthen Regent of 1490 carried 225...

Mary Rose was less than half the size of of Henry V's 1400 ton clinker-built "great ship" Grace Dieu of 1413-1420, almost exactly half the size of Loredan's 1200 ton Pandora that fought at Zonchio in 1499, not to mention Henry VII's Henri Grace a Dieu; Mary Rose was not one of the largest carracks ever built.

Only twenty of her guns could be considered "heavy" and were in the range of 12-15 pdrs. Her broadside would be inadequate compared to that of any decent-sized frigate of a century or two later. Further, even the largest carrack doesn't come up to half the size, tonnage, area of canvas, or broadside weight-of-metal as a typical 18th century line-battleship.

So what?

You claimed that topweight due to weight of rigging and guns was a neccessity due to larger ships being needed than the carrack; yet the carrack was the first ship type that demonstrated those needs, and for those precise reasons.

Is there a point to this?

Oh, and BTW, you're wrong about why the Mary Rose sank. Her topweight did not doom her as much as her waterline gunports being left open while attempting a turn, which let the ocean in.

Not according to model test tank experiements done within the past ten years; without equivalent weight of guns, and equivalent weight of crew, the model made the turn easily, despite the sills of the gunports taking water.

Add guns and crew, and it rolled right the fuck over.

This has to be about the first truly stupid thing you've said in the course of this discussion.

True enough, I won't bother explaining what happened there.

Very relevant, no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

Relevant?
Why?
Re-wording is not explanation.

Sayeth the man who's entire support for his "argument" on that particular point is "Speculation is evidence, I need nothing more".

Outrageous lie, baldfaced and so easily shown to be one that I'm almost embarrased for you.

Scroll.
Up.

And when we do, we find you saying, in response to a demand for evidence for the man's mercenary motivations, this:

Considering the brain-dead irrational vehemence with which he's attacking the propellor, it is FAR from unreasonable to assume he could be writing a smear piece for financial gain, especially considering the time in which he's writing.

For which the support you give is:

It's a reasonable assumption in lieu of contradictory information, and in light of the competitive and cutthroat mercenary atmosphere of British shipbuilding.

. . .

When confronted with irrational behavior, idly speculating as to it's cause comes naturally.

Those are your own words, aren't they?

My words, but they sure as fuck don't equate to "speculation = evidence", now do they, you idiotic motherfucker...

So, from YOU, we have "it's reasonable to assume" because "it's a reasonable assumption" because "idly speculating as to its cause comes naturally".

Translation from Hipper-speak: "Specualtion is evidence, I need nothing more".

No, fucktard, speculation is speculation and assumption is assumption; I've never said different, and make no excuses.

I have nothing but contempt for your idiotic, fallacious demand. The claim was that he was either an idiot, or working for someone; I've shown he was an idiot. Nothing else is required.

That wouldn't be accepted as a standard of proof on anything from anybody else around here and I see no reason why it should be granted to you.

This is the last time I'm going to say this:

THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM DOES NOT DEMAND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT BOTH ELEMENTS; EITHER-OR, NOT BOTH.

Try taking your own advice.

Try fucking yourself with a frozen piece of shit.

Which defeats the essential observations... how, exactly?

When there are complex causes for a phenomena, asserting only one of them to be the cause without explanation is not rational.

Hoseason was only being vague, but you're assuming he's being specific with no justification.

Four, according to the Maritime Digital Encyclopedia.

They're wrong, unless someone can explain how two reciprocating engines share the same, single-throw crankshaft...

And yet, the screw could not have developed sufficient revolutions to move the bulk of the Great Eastern in anything other than a calm sea at best and at that only at a crawl, no matter how much power was applied.

That does not show the screw to be an auxilliary only, though. Part of a whole, yes, but why subordinate?
Were the paddlewheels sufficient on their own?

The technology which would have rendered paddlewheels redundant in a vessel that massive did not exist in 1858.

Your claim that I was addressing was that the screw was an auxilliary; why would the more efficient system be furnished with more power than the less efficient paddlewheels if this were so?

I don't know how you read anything else into the text of the letter.

I have no doubts it's true you feel that way, but there's no way to confuse "...the frightful and dangerous rolling which is the inevitable consequence of this mode of propulsion" with anything other than what it says.

Considering that what we're discussing in this tangent in part is the limitations of the technology at the time, it is not.

Unless you can apply the making of a laundry list of those limitations in some meaningful way, it is.

The point of contention that led to this was that Hoseason didn't take into account ships of higher power, despite being fully aware of ships of higher power.

Wrong.

Yes, I misread this pdf chart.

Which invalidates the information in said work... how, exactly?

Who said the information was invalid, it's annoying bullfuckery...is it the most recent work that's available?

Funny coming from you, actually.

Show that "either A or B" actually means "A and B", or shut the fuck up.

Lie. I never said any such thing in the course of this thread.

When I post this:

A heavy rolling ship, whose center of gravity lies low, will require a lofty sail to keep her steady in the water, and to lay her down for that purpose.

And you reply with:

See above.

And what's above deals specifically with topweight to dampen oscillation, you most certainly are, or at least were, confusing the two.

I'm confusing nothing. But it seems you are confused between what I had actually argued and your strawmandering of my argument. I really don't think you can tell the difference anymore.

See above...

[Patrick Degan]

Given how you've hopelessly mangled the point I had originally been making, I wouldn't be calling anybody "illiterate" if I were you, Frankie.

Predictably evasive, predictably dishonest.

Predictably pathetic, predictably comical —coming from you.

You're being very disingenuous. More than half the guns carried by HMS Mary Rose one of the largest carracks built, were light-calibre pieces for close-range fire.

As to guns, I said carracks carried small ones, but the 800 ton burthen Sovereign of 1488 carried 141 guns, and the 1000 ton burthen Regent of 1490 carried 225...

Pop-guns in comparison to the artillery carried by line-battleships of the 18th and 19th centuries.

You claimed that topweight due to weight of rigging and guns was a neccessity due to larger ships being needed than the carrack; yet the carrack was the first ship type that demonstrated those needs, and for those precise reasons.

The ships you keep pointing to as your examples, however, were not common of the carrack type. Only three of those "great ships" were ever built for Henry's navy and of those in the navies of England's rivals not many more existed.

Oh, and BTW, you're wrong about why the Mary Rose sank. Her topweight did not doom her as much as her waterline gunports being left open while attempting a turn, which let the ocean in.

Not according to model test tank experiements done within the past ten years; without equivalent weight of guns, and equivalent weight of crew, the model made the turn easily, despite the sills of the gunports taking water.

Add guns and crew, and it rolled right the fuck over.

Given that the ship was carrying no more or heavier guns that she had been throughout her career, was carrying her normal crew complement at the Solent as throughout her career, that the refit that increased her displacement took place several years before her sinking, this is inadequate as an explanation for the ship's loss.

As pointed out here:

There have been a number of attempts to explain the loss of the Mary Rose, none of them entirely satisfactory. Burchet (Naval History, I, p.340) and Sir Walter Raleigh (Maxims of State, p133) both attributed her loss to the gunports being too close to the water line, indeed, Burchet gave a height of only 16 inches. If this had been the case the Mary Rose would never have left port, her scuppers would have been submerged! The archaeological evidence indicates that the gunports must have had close to the four feet clearance recommended by Raleigh.

Peter Carew’s account is at variance with that of the Flemish survivor and Van der Delft, stating that the Mary Rose started heeling immediately after his brother went aboard and her sails were set. There is no mention of her being engaged with the French galleys, contradicting the French account as well. Both Hall’s and Hollingshed’s Chronicles lay the blame on low gunports and heavy ordnance, further adding that the guns were unbreached. While this was undoubtably the case, the guns were still held in position by their recoil ropes, there is evidence for only one gun (on the upper deck) having fallen from the port to the starboard side.

Perhaps the most likely reason for the loss of the Mary Rose is the most mundane, a simple handling error in the heat of the skirmish with the galleys. Any such problem may have been compounded by confusion or a lack of discipline amongst the crew. The excavation of the ship also revealed that the ballast had shifted to the starboard side, although whether this was a cause or as a result of the ship sinking is uncertain. Once the angle of heel was sufficient for water to enter the gunports the fate of the ship was sealed.

Outrageous lie, baldfaced and so easily shown to be one that I'm almost embarrased for you.

Scroll.
Up.

And when we do, we find you saying, in response to a demand for evidence for the man's mercenary motivations, this:

Considering the brain-dead irrational vehemence with which he's attacking the propellor, it is FAR from unreasonable to assume he could be writing a smear piece for financial gain, especially considering the time in which he's writing.

For which the support you give is:

It's a reasonable assumption in lieu of contradictory information, and in light of the competitive and cutthroat mercenary atmosphere of British shipbuilding.

. . .

When confronted with irrational behavior, idly speculating as to it's cause comes naturally.

Those are your own words, aren't they?

My words, but they sure as fuck don't equate to "speculation = evidence", now do they, you idiotic motherfucker...

What a pathetic evasion on your part. But then, this is no longer a surprise. When you offer nothing more for a proof of an assertion than "idle speculation comes naturally", that is indeed you saying "speculation is evidence". Words mean things.

So, from YOU, we have "it's reasonable to assume" because "it's a reasonable assumption" because "idly speculating as to its cause comes naturally".

Translation from Hipper-speak: "Specualtion is evidence, I need nothing more".

No, fucktard, speculation is speculation and assumption is assumption; I've never said different, and make no excuses.

I have nothing but contempt for your idiotic, fallacious demand. The claim was that he was either an idiot, or working for someone; I've shown he was an idiot. Nothing else is required.

Your "contempt" is irrelevant, as are the rest of your empty blusterings on this matter. If your objection to Hoseason's position was that he was an idiot and that alone, there would have been no issue of contention. When you attach to that a baseless assertion, however, the burden was on you to either back it up or withdraw it.

That wouldn't be accepted as a standard of proof on anything from anybody else around here and I see no reason why it should be granted to you.

This is the last time I'm going to say this:

THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM DOES NOT DEMAND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT BOTH ELEMENTS; EITHER-OR, NOT BOTH.

In a word, bullshit.

Try taking your own advice.

Try fucking yourself with a frozen piece of shit.

Awww... Did you just piss youself? Poor widdle baby.

Which defeats the essential observations... how, exactly?

When there are complex causes for a phenomena, asserting only one of them to be the cause without explanation is not rational.

Hoseason was only being vague, but you're assuming he's being specific with no justification.

And if I had relied entirely on Hoseason's observations, you just might have had an argument. I had not, however; subsequently quoting Reed's A Treatise On The Stability Of Ships on the matter. To reiterate:

The scientific investigations of the late Mr. Froude and others have placed the true principles of the matter beyond all question. Nor is any great amount of scientific investigation needful to a true appreciation of the subject.

[color-yellow]If a ship possessing a very low centre of gravity, and consequently, great stability, be forcibly moved from the upright position in still water, and then left free to go back, she will (neglecting the question of her moment of inertia) return with violence to the upright position; pass, by virtue of the moment acquired, beyond the upright, and then come to rest; return again through the upright position; and so on,[/color] oscillating about that position through decreasing angles, until the momentum has become expended, and she is brought eventually to rest.

. . .

This idea, while needing manifold developments and qualifications, is the fundamental idea which regulates, if we may so to speak, a ship's behaviour in waves; and it points immediately and directly to the doctrine that, within certain limits, a very stable ship may be regarded as tending to violent rolling in waves, while a ship of small stability may be regarded as having much less inducement to violent rolling. The limit on the side of great stability is to be found in the fact that were the stability of a ship infinite, an exact conformity to changes of mean wave-slope the condition of maximum motion; the limit on the side of small stability is of course to be found in the well-understood danger of capsizing from excessive crankiness

And yet, the screw could not have developed sufficient revolutions to move the bulk of the Great Eastern in anything other than a calm sea at best and at that only at a crawl, no matter how much power was applied.

That does not show the screw to be an auxilliary only, though. Part of a whole, yes, but why subordinate? Were the paddlewheels sufficient on their own?

At the time (this being before further technological development which put the superiority of screw propulsion beyond all challenge), paddlewheels could get a ship in motion (and bring her to a halt) faster than a screw could, which was about the only advantage that remained to them. Besides, given that the screw was inadequate by itself to drive the ship, it's fairly obvious that it was the paddlewheels which set her in motion in the first place.

The technology which would have rendered paddlewheels redundant in a vessel that massive did not exist in 1858.

Your claim that I was addressing was that the screw was an auxilliary; why would the more efficient system be furnished with more power than the less efficient paddlewheels if this were so?

"More efficient" in every other screw vessel of the day but wholly inadequate for a monster like the Great Eastern. More powerful does not equal more efficient if that power can't be used effectively enough.

I don't know how you read anything else into the text of the letter.

I have no doubts it's true you feel that way, but there's no way to confuse "...the frightful and dangerous rolling which is the inevitable consequence of this mode of propulsion" with anything other than what it says.

And if that statement wasn't so vague that it leaves an open interpretation to its meaning, you might have had an argument on that score.

Considering that what we're discussing in this tangent in part is the limitations of the technology at the time, it is not.

Unless you can apply the making of a laundry list of those limitations in some meaningful way, it is.

Except that list WAS provided and was applied meaningfully:

On comparing the screw steamer of the present time with the best examples of steamers propelled by paddlewheels, the superiority of the former is so marked that it may cause some surprise that the revolution just descrited should have progressed no more rapidly. The reason of this slow progress, however, was probably that the introduction of the rapidly revolving screw, in place of the slowmoving paddlewheel, necessitated a complete revolution in the design of their steam engines; and the unavoidable change from the heavy, longstroked, lowspeed engines previously in use, to the light engines, with small cylinders and high piston speed, called for by the new system of propulsion, was one that necessarily occurred slowly, and was accompanied by its share of those engineering blunders and accidents that invariably take place during such periods of transition. Engineers had first to learn to design such engines as should he reliable under the then novel conditions of screw propulsion, and their experience could only be gained through the occurrence of many mishaps and costly failures. The best proportions of engines and screws, for a given ship, were determined only by long experience, although great assistance was derived from the extensive series of experiments made with the French steamer Pelican. It also became necessary to train up a body of engine drivers who should be capable of managing these new engines; for they required the exercise of a then unprecedented amount of care and skill. Finally, with the accomplishment of these two requisites to success must simultaneously occur the enlightenment of the public, professional as well as nonprofessional, in regard to their advantages. Thus it happens that it is only after a considerable time that the screw attained its proper place as an instrument of propulsion, and finally drove the paddlewheel quite out of use, except in shoal water.

Now our large screw steamers are of higher speed than any paddle-steamers on the ocean, and develop their power at far less cost. This increased economy is due not only to the use of a more efficient propelling instrument, and to changes already described, but also, in a great degree, to the economy which has followed as a consequence of other changes in the steam engine driving it. The earliest days of screw propulsion witnessed the use of steam of from 5 to l5 pounds pressure, in a geared engine using jet condensation, and giving a horsepower at an expense of perhaps 7 to 10, or even more, pounds of coal per hour. A little later came direct acting engines with jet condensation and steam at 20 pounds pressure, costing about 5 or 6 pounds per horsepower per hour. The steampressure rose a little higher with the use of greater expansion, and the economy of fuel was further improved. The introduction of the surface condenser, which began to be generally adopted some ten years ago, brought down the cost of power to from 3 to 4 pounds in the better class of engines. At about the same time, this change to surface condensation helping greatly to overcome those troubles arising from boiler in station which had prevented the rise of steam pressure above about 25 pounds per square inch, and as, at the same time, it was learned by engineers that the deposit of limescale in the marine boiler was determined by temperature rather than by the degree of concentration, and that all the lime entering the boiler was deposited at the pressure just mentioned, a sudden advance took place. Careful design, good workmanship, and skillful management, made the surface condenser an efficient apparatus; and, the dangers of incrustation being thus lessened, the movement toward higher pressures recommenced, and progressed so rapidly that now 75 pounds per square inch is very usual, and more than 125 pounds has since been attained.[color]

From chapter five of A History Of The Growth Of The Steam Engine by Robert Thurston, A.M., C.E. (1878). You may note that the innovations cited by Thurston occurred only ten years prior to writing his book. Which places the date at 1868 —a bit over twenty years after Great Britain plied the seas. Which supports the point that the final triumph of screw propulsion awaited the solution of several engineering problems which were still considerable roadblocks in I.K. Brunel's day.

Which invalidates the information in said work... how, exactly?

Who said the information was invalid, it's annoying bullfuckery...is it the most recent work that's available?

And you have the nerve to accuse anybody else of dishonesty or lacking logic. By your brand of "logic", we could never cite The Naval War Of 1812 as an authority on that segment of history because Theodore Roosevelt wrote it 105 years ago and is therefore not "the most recent work available".

Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself, doesn't it?

Funny coming from you, actually.

Show that "either A or B" actually means "A and B", or shut the fuck up.

You don't even see why not only your assertion as to Hoseason's motive isn't valid due to its lack of factual support, but also that it is logically invalid as well. It adds only confusion, not clarification, to the issue. It begs several questions, not the least of which is why, if one group of manufactures were willing to go so far as to bribe a serving officer of the Royal Navy for his advocacy, the other group wouldn't offer a bigger bribe to buy his cooperation. Was there maybe a bidding war for his support? It is an extraneous term which answers nothing. Which means not only was "B" unsupportable by fact, as speculation "B" was fucking meaningless. Which means there wasn't even any point in bringing it up in the first place.

To underline the point: suppose we engage in a little "idle speculation" regarding the captain of the Mary Rose —either he was an idiot, or he had been bribed by the French to sink his own ship.

See how foolish that sounds? And how logically indefensible it is?

Lie. I never said any such thing in the course of this thread.

When I post this:
A heavy rolling ship, whose center of gravity lies low, will require a lofty sail to keep her steady in the water, and to lay her down for that purpose.And you reply with:
See above.And what's above deals specifically with topweight to dampen oscillation, you most certainly are, or at least were, confusing the two.

Wrong. You are NOT getting away with that one.

Your challenge on that point was that I had provided nothing to show that topweight was beneficial to stability. To which I quoted the "above" I now cite once again:

Link

The scientific investigations of the late Mr. Froude and others have placed the true principles of the matter beyond all question. Nor is any great amount of scientific investigation needful to a true appreciation of the subject.

If a ship possessing a very low centre of gravity, and consequently, great stability, be forcibly moved from the upright position in still water, and then left free to go back, she will (neglecting the question of her moment of inertia) return with violence to the upright position; pass, by virtue of the moment acquired, beyond the upright, and then come to rest; return again through the upright position; and so on, oscillating about that position through decreasing angles, until the momentum has become expended, and she is brought eventually to rest.

. . .

This idea, while needing manifold developments and qualifications, is the fundamental idea which regulates, if we may so to speak, a ship's behaviour in waves; and it points immediately and directly to the doctrine that, within certain limits, a very stable ship may be regarded as tending to violent rolling in waves, while a ship of small stability may be regarded as having much less inducement to violent rolling. The limit on the side of great stability is to be found in the fact that were the stability of a ship infinite, an exact conformity to changes of mean wave-slope the condition of maximum motion; the limit on the side of small stability is of course to be found in the well-understood danger of capsizing from excessive crankiness

I never once argued against the factor played by wind force on canvas in reducing a sailing vessel's roll under normal circumstances. And for you to say or imply otherwise is pure strawmandering.

No, I don't think you're in a position to be accusing anybody of dishonesty, Frankie.

[Frank Hipper]

Predictably pathetic, predictably comical —coming from you.

And still no attempt at answering the question how adding topweight to dampen oscillation would have anything to do with a Noah's Ark experiment.

Pop-guns in comparison to the artillery carried by line-battleships of the 18th and 19th centuries.

No matter how small, they satisfy the definition for "added weight" you mentioned, especially in those numbers.

The ships you keep pointing to as your examples, however, were not common of the carrack type.

By definition, "largest" means uncommon, moron!

When the question is about "greater size than a cog or carrack", or whatever your wording was, the common is not the example to look for!

Despite that, Ian Friel of the Mary Rose Trust claims that dimensions in the 1445 Timbotta manuscript strongly imply that 300-400 tons was the smallest size for a carrack; Mary Rose not "one of the largest" carracks, not even close.

Given that the ship was carrying no more or heavier guns that she had been throughout her career, was carrying her normal crew complement at the Solent as throughout her career, that the refit that increased her displacement took place several years before her sinking, this is inadequate as an explanation for the ship's loss.

Displacement?

Ships then weren't measured by tons displacement, but by tons burthen, a measurement of hull volume and thereby carrying capacity, not the weight of water they displaced.

Mary Rose gaining 200 tons in a rebuild can only mean she gained considerable hull size in that rebuild.

As to explanations for the loss, the test tank experiment relies far less on conjecture than anything I've ever seen presented, anywhere.

What a pathetic evasion on your part. But then, this is no longer a surprise. When you offer nothing more for a proof of an assertion than "idle speculation comes naturally", that is indeed you saying "speculation is evidence". Words mean things.

When is your crippled mind going to wrap itself around the simple fact that that was no assertion requiring support?

Your "contempt" is irrelevant, as are the rest of your empty blusterings on this matter. If your objection to Hoseason's position was that he was an idiot and that alone, there would have been no issue of contention. When you attach to that a baseless assertion, however, the burden was on you to either back it up or withdraw it.

Fool, in showing him to be an idiot, there was no burden to show anything further.

Are you really this stupid?

In a word, bullshit.

Incredulity does not mean it's false, idiot.

Awww... Did you just piss youself? Poor widdle baby.

And if I had relied entirely on Hoseason's observations, you just might have had an argument.

Considering I attacking Hoseason's "argument" specifically, and not yours generally; I do have a point, Herr Short Attention Span.

At the time (this being before further technological development which put the superiority of screw propulsion beyond all challenge), paddlewheels could get a ship in motion (and bring her to a halt) faster than a screw could, which was about the only advantage that remained to them. Besides, given that the screw was inadequate by itself to drive the ship, it's fairly obvious that it was the paddlewheels which set her in motion in the first place.

And that makes them the primary engines because...?

Why is it "fairly obvious" that the wheels set her in motion?

The paddlewheels may have been great at acceleration, there's no reason to make a definite conclusion for that with what you've presented; but your claim was that the screw engine was an auxillary only.

"More efficient" in every other screw vessel of the day but wholly inadequate for a monster like the Great Eastern. More powerful does not equal more efficient if that power can't be used effectively enough.

Despite your exceptionally vague support for the claim that Great Eastern could move barely beyond a crawl in calm with the propellor alone, she survived eight days with her screw by itself in a hurricane during 1861 after one wheel was destroyed, and the other shut down for safety's sake.

According to you:
"And yet, the screw could not have developed sufficient revolutions to move the bulk of the Great Eastern in anything other than a calm sea at best and at that only at a crawl, no matter how much power was applied."

Yet, the ship was able to come into port safely on the power of the screw alone?

And if that statement wasn't so vague that it leaves an open interpretation to its meaning, you might have had an argument on that score.

That statement isn't vague in the slightest, what's wrong with you?

Which supports the point that the final triumph of screw propulsion awaited the solution of several engineering problems which were still considerable roadblocks in I.K. Brunel's day.

Whoop-de-shittledy-do!

Great Britain remains one of the most important engineering achievements of all time, in no way a failure; Thurston does not refute that.

You don't even see why not only your assertion as to Hoseason's motive isn't valid due to its lack of factual support, but also that it is logically invalid as well.

Only if you ignore repeatedly supporting the assertion he was an idiot.

It is an extraneous term which answers nothing. Which means not only was "B" unsupportable by fact, as speculation "B" was fucking meaningless. Which means there wasn't even any point in bringing it up in the first place.

It adds emphasis to the weight of "A".

To underline the point: suppose we engage in a little "idle speculation" regarding the captain of the Mary Rose —either he was an idiot, or he had been bribed by the French to sink his own ship.

See how foolish that sounds? And how logically indefensible it is?

If the captain left an account that illustrated in no uncertain terms what an idiot he was, what motivation would there be to explore if he was bribed by the French?

Wrong. You are NOT getting away with that one.

I never once argued against the factor played by wind force on canvas in reducing a sailing vessel's roll under normal circumstances. And for you to say or imply otherwise is pure strawmandering.

No, I don't think you're in a position to be accusing anybody of dishonesty, Frankie.

See this thumb?

Gee, you're dumb...

I have NEVER accused you of arguing against wind-in-canvas, you fucking imbecile, but the point of that was showing where I thought you were confusing topweight and steadying sail...

[Patrick Degan]

Predictably pathetic, predictably comical —coming from you.

And still no attempt at answering the question how adding topweight to dampen oscillation would have anything to do with a Noah's Ark experiment.

Our particular tangent in this discussion isn't focussed upon the ark experiment as you well know. Since the ark was never designed to incorporate sails in the first place, the topweight discussion is a side-issue.

As to the original question regarding the ark experiment, it's obvious that a vessel of that sort built with modern design and techniques of construction is going to be equipped with it's own ballasting systems, paravanes and bilge keels to dampen wave oscillation and keep the vessel at a fairly even attitude in most sea states. Since it is designed merely to float, it won't have engine machinery (unless as an auxilliary system required to satisfy safety regulations), which simplifies the ballasting problem and opens up additional cargo space within. Nor will any but the most basic superstructure be required. It's mass compared to the rest of the ark would be negligible and the ballasting plan would be drafted accordingly.

It would essentially be the world's largest barge.

Pop-guns in comparison to the artillery carried by line-battleships of the 18th and 19th centuries.

No matter how small, they satisfy the definition for "added weight" you mentioned, especially in those numbers.

By a very technical usage of that definition, since the small calibre pieces won't add up to the same weights as the heavier artillery carried by line-battleships.

The ships you keep pointing to as your examples, however, were not common of the carrack type.

By definition, "largest" means uncommon, moron!

When the question is about "greater size than a cog or carrack", or whatever your wording was, the common is not the example to look for!

Wrong. Common is exactly the example to look for. Exceptions do not destroy rules.

Despite that, Ian Friel of the Mary Rose Trust claims that dimensions in the 1445 Timbotta manuscript strongly imply that 300-400 tons was the smallest size for a carrack; Mary Rose not "one of the largest" carracks, not even close.

Considering that it massed up to twice the displacement of most examples of the type and was exceeded by only a very few vessels larger than her, it does qualify as one of the largest of the type. Stop nitpicking.

Given that the ship was carrying no more or heavier guns that she had been throughout her career, was carrying her normal crew complement at the Solent as throughout her career, that the refit that increased her displacement took place several years before her sinking, this is inadequate as an explanation for the ship's loss.

Displacement?

Ships then weren't measured by tons displacement, but by tons burthen, a measurement of hull volume and thereby carrying capacity, not the weight of water they displaced.

Mass is mass. They could have measured the ship in stone weights and that still makes no difference as to how we can estimate the mass of an object today to a greater accuracy. Quite frankly, I'm surprised to see you insisting that we judge the matter by the less accurate, not more accurate, standard of measure.

Mary Rose gaining 200 tons in a rebuild can only mean she gained considerable hull size in that rebuild.

The heavier weight could also have resulted from additional construction on her fore and sterncastles as well as reinforcement of the gundecks and addition of heavier pieces than what she was designed to carry, and the remains of the ship on display in Portsmouth indicate no greater hull size than she had the day of her launching.

As to explanations for the loss, the test tank experiment relies far less on conjecture than anything I've ever seen presented, anywhere.

Um, that tank test experiment was executed in two parts: in both the model was loaded with the scale weights representing armament and crew. During the first test it moved and turned with no problem. In the second test a fan produced a sudden gust in scale represeting the winds which unexpectedly blew up at the moment she was making her turn and heeled the model over until her gunports dipped into the water, after which it sank. The very experiment you refer to showed the ship was not sunk simply as a result of the weight she was carrying.

What a pathetic evasion on your part. But then, this is no longer a surprise. When you offer nothing more for a proof of an assertion than "idle speculation comes naturally", that is indeed you saying "speculation is evidence". Words mean things.

When is your crippled mind going to wrap itself around the simple fact that that was no assertion requiring support?

Continue tapdancing for as long as you think you can keep it up.

Your "contempt" is irrelevant, as are the rest of your empty blusterings on this matter. If your objection to Hoseason's position was that he was an idiot and that alone, there would have been no issue of contention. When you attach to that a baseless assertion, however, the burden was on you to either back it up or withdraw it.

Fool, in showing him to be an idiot, there was no burden to show anything further.

Except for the claim you attached to your criticism of Hoseason's expertise.

Are you really this stupid?

A question, I think, you should more properly address to yourself.

And if I had relied entirely on Hoseason's observations, you just might have had an argument.

Considering I attacking Hoseason's "argument" specifically, and not yours generally; I do have a point, Herr Short Attention Span.

No, you did not, no matter how much you dearly wish to believe you did. The observation regarding the roll of a dismasted vessel was not wholly reliant on Hoseason's testimony, was supported by the other work cited, and your continual handwaving does not make this go away no matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really want it to.

The paddlewheels may have been great at acceleration, there's no reason to make a definite conclusion for that with what you've presented; but your claim was that the screw engine was an auxillary only.

If the paddlewheels were "great at acceleration", and the screw was incapable of driving the ship on its own or even getting it going under its own power, I should think that rather answers the question. Really, how many more times are we going to have to go over the same ground?

"More efficient" in every other screw vessel of the day but wholly inadequate for a monster like the Great Eastern. More powerful does not equal more efficient if that power can't be used effectively enough.

Despite your exceptionally vague support for the claim that Great Eastern could move barely beyond a crawl in calm with the propellor alone, she survived eight days with her screw by itself in a hurricane during 1861 after one wheel was destroyed, and the other shut down for safety's sake.

According to you:
"And yet, the screw could not have developed sufficient revolutions to move the bulk of the Great Eastern in anything other than a calm sea at best and at that only at a crawl, no matter how much power was applied."

Yet, the ship was able to come into port safely on the power of the screw alone?

—and with the assistance of her sails. You also neglected the fact that the screw was damaged in the storm, along with the rudder and the sidewheels.

And if that statement wasn't so vague that it leaves an open interpretation to its meaning, you might have had an argument on that score.

That statement isn't vague in the slightest, what's wrong with you?

I'm not responsible for your fantasies.

Which supports the point that the final triumph of screw propulsion awaited the solution of several engineering problems which were still considerable roadblocks in I.K. Brunel's day.

Whoop-de-shittledy-do!

Great Britain remains one of the most important engineering achievements of all time, in no way a failure; Thurston does not refute that.

Strawman. I did not say the Great Britain was a failure, and your non-response does not refute the fact that even such a "triumph" was still limited in comparison to ships which were able to exploit fully the innovations which postdated Great Britain.

You don't even see why not only your assertion as to Hoseason's motive isn't valid due to its lack of factual support, but also that it is logically invalid as well.

Only if you ignore repeatedly supporting the assertion he was an idiot.

Which was fine up until you attached a wholly unfounded speculation on your part.

It is an extraneous term which answers nothing. Which means not only was "B" unsupportable by fact, as speculation "B" was fucking meaningless. Which means there wasn't even any point in bringing it up in the first place.

It adds emphasis to the weight of "A".

To restore the full context of what was outlined:

It adds only confusion, not clarification, to the issue. It begs several questions, not the least of which is why, if one group of manufactures were willing to go so far as to bribe a serving officer of the Royal Navy for his advocacy, the other group wouldn't offer a bigger bribe to buy his cooperation. Was there maybe a bidding war for his support? It is an extraneous term which answers nothing. Which means not only was "B" unsupportable by fact, as speculation "B" was fucking meaningless. Which means there wasn't even any point in bringing it up in the first place.

To say a wholly unfounded speculation "adds weight" to the argument that Hoseason might have been an idiot is disingenuous to say the least.

To underline the point: suppose we engage in a little "idle speculation" regarding the captain of the Mary Rose —either he was an idiot, or he had been bribed by the French to sink his own ship.

See how foolish that sounds? And how logically indefensible it is?

If the captain left an account that illustrated in no uncertain terms what an idiot he was, what motivation would there be to explore if he was bribed by the French?

Similarly, what motivation is there to explore whether J.C. Hoseason may have been bribed by "the paddlewheel steamship manufacturers"? What was the point in even mentioning it in the first place?

I have NEVER accused you of arguing against wind-in-canvas, you fucking imbecile, but the point of that was showing where I thought you were confusing topweight and steadying sail...

Well, I was not. I presume we can at least put that one out of the way.

[Frank Hipper]

By a very technical usage of that definition, since the small calibre pieces won't add up to the same weights as the heavier artillery carried by line-battleships.

You have some unstated example in mind that, no matter how any other example satisfies the terms you set, you refuse to aknowledge them.

Wrong. Common is exactly the example to look for. Exceptions do not destroy rules.

Even a "common" carrack meets the criteria you seemingly extablished, yet...

Considering that it massed up to twice the displacement of most examples of the type and was exceeded by only a very few vessels larger than her, it does qualify as one of the largest of the type. Stop nitpicking.

As originally built, it was only 100 tons greater than average ships built more than 60 years previously. It is no nitpick.

Mass is mass. They could have measured the ship in stone weights and that still makes no difference as to how we can estimate the mass of an object today to a greater accuracy. Quite frankly, I'm surprised to see you insisting that we judge the matter by the less accurate, not more accurate, standard of measure.

Mass is NOT what is measured by tons burthen, volume is, and I clearly stated that.
The volume of a ship is calculated by a straightforward measurement of dimensions; any attempt at calculating the mass of a ship, even one with with partial remains extant, is going to rely on specluation to one extent or another, while given the remains of Mary rose, calculating the volume belowdecks by measurement of beam, length, and depth of hold does not.

In comparison, estimating tons displacement is far less accurate than determining volume; tons burthen.

The heavier weight could also have resulted from additional construction on her fore and sterncastles as well as reinforcement of the gundecks and addition of heavier pieces than what she was designed to carry, and the remains of the ship on display in Portsmouth indicate no greater hull size than she had the day of her launching.

Tons burthen is not a measure of weight, but of volume below the maindeck.

The calculation for determining tons burthen only takes into cosideration length, beam, and depth of hold from the maindeck.

And, how can you possibly remark that the remains indicate no greater hull size when:
Increased tonnage in a rebuild can only be explained by increased size, due to the simple fact that hull volume is the only "tonnage" that the 16th century English measured their ships by, and that a full report on the remains has never been published?

Um, that tank test experiment was executed in two parts: in both the model was loaded with the scale weights representing armament and crew. During the first test it moved and turned with no problem. In the second test a fan produced a sudden gust in scale represeting the winds which unexpectedly blew up at the moment she was making her turn and heeled the model over until her gunports dipped into the water, after which it sank. The very experiment you refer to showed the ship was not sunk simply as a result of the weight she was carrying.

Um, that statement has absolutely nothing to do with what you've been arguing.

It certainly doesn't refute that those tests relied less on conjecture than any theory based on interpretation of eyewitness accounts.

Continue tapdancing for as long as you think you can keep it up.

Keep ignoring the fact that I satisfied the conditions of that claim for as long as you think you can keep it up.

Either an idiot, or working for someone; definitely an idiot...

No, you did not, no matter how much you dearly wish to believe you did. The observation regarding the roll of a dismasted vessel was not wholly reliant on Hoseason's testimony, was supported by the other work cited, and your continual handwaving does not make this go away no matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really want it to.

Just because you have lost track of what was being said in response to what, that does not mean everyone has.

Not to mention, until you presented other material, you supported your argument with Hoseason's letter only.

If the paddlewheels were "great at acceleration", and the screw was incapable of driving the ship on its own or even getting it going under its own power...

Based on what?

Vague remarks about the development of steam engines?

Because you want it to be so?

Why don't you think infromation on actual engine or propellor RPM for Great Eastern are needed to support this?

...I should think that rather answers the question.

It doesn't even come close!

Really, how many more times are we going to have to go over the same ground?

Until data is produced that a firm conclusion can be based on.

—and with the assistance of her sails. You also neglected the fact that the screw was damaged in the storm, along with the rudder and the sidewheels.

The sails that were torn away as soon as they were set?
Neccessitating emergency repairs to the rudder so the propellor engine could be started again to get the ship under control in the middle of a hurricane, is that what you're talking about?

I'm not responsible for your fantasies.

"...the frightful and dangerous rolling which is the inevitable consequence of this mode of propulsion" is an unequivocal statement; I'm not diagraming the fucking thing for you.

Strawman. I did not say the Great Britain was a failure, and your non-response does not refute the fact that even such a "triumph" was still limited in comparison to ships which were able to exploit fully the innovations which postdated Great Britain.

You can't strawman a non-argument.
You introduced an utterly pointless attempt at distraction with this entire tangent, it is not a matter of contention that engines developed further.

If there is a point, state it.

Which was fine up until you attached a wholly unfounded speculation on your part.

The man's irrationality is jaw-dropping in the extreme; unfounded my ass.

Similarly, what motivation is there to explore whether J.C. Hoseason may have been bribed by "the paddlewheel steamship manufacturers"?

YES, finally!

Now we're getting somewhere!

When given "A or B" conditions, support for one precludes the need for support for the other.

See? You can do it!

I'm real proud of ya.

What was the point in even mentioning it in the first place?

The man's nonsensical letter!

I mean really; difficulty in re-attaching a prop at sea = screw propellors are a failure?

[Patrick Degan]

By a very technical usage of that definition, since the small calibre pieces won't add up to the same weights as the heavier artillery carried by line-battleships.

You have some unstated example in mind that, no matter how any other example satisfies the terms you set, you refuse to aknowledge them.

Twenty heavy pieces (12lb) in all. The rest one- or two-pounders and stone guns. That was about the armament carried in Henry's "great ships".

Wrong. Common is exactly the example to look for. Exceptions do not destroy rules.

Even a "common" carrack meets the criteria you seemingly extablished, yet...

Typical carracks measured in at around 80-95 feet in length and 300-500 tons displacement. Any typical East Indiaman, third- or fourth-rate frigate, and every line-battleship of the 18th century, easily exceeded those dimensions.

Considering that it massed up to twice the displacement of most examples of the type and was exceeded by only a very few vessels larger than her, it does qualify as one of the largest of the type. Stop nitpicking.

As originally built, it was only 100 tons greater than average ships built more than 60 years previously. It is no nitpick.

Oh, yes it is. Particularly in comparison to the examples of ships larger that the typical carrack which were built in ever greater numbers and certainly in far greater numbers than the atypical examples you wish to point to.

Mass is mass. They could have measured the ship in stone weights and that still makes no difference as to how we can estimate the mass of an object today to a greater accuracy. Quite frankly, I'm surprised to see you insisting that we judge the matter by the less accurate, not more accurate, standard of measure.

Mass is NOT what is measured by tons burthen, volume is, and I clearly stated that.
The volume of a ship is calculated by a straightforward measurement of dimensions; any attempt at calculating the mass of a ship, even one with with partial remains extant, is going to rely on specluation to one extent or another, while given the remains of Mary Rose, calculating the volume belowdecks by measurement of beam, length, and depth of hold does not.

In comparison, estimating tons displacement is far less accurate than determining volume; tons burthen.

Tons burthen is an estimate of how much weight a ship is capable of carrying by design. It does not tell us the total mass (gross vessel tonnage plus burden) or whether the ship was overloaded or not. It is by consequence of a lack of data the less accurate measure.

The heavier weight could also have resulted from additional construction on her fore and sterncastles as well as reinforcement of the gundecks and addition of heavier pieces than what she was designed to carry, and the remains of the ship on display in Portsmouth indicate no greater hull size than she had the day of her launching.

Tons burthen is not a measure of weight, but of volume below the maindeck. The calculation for determining tons burthen only takes into cosideration length, beam, and depth of hold from the maindeck.

Which still does not yield up the information required to tell us the mass of the Mary Rose at the time of her sinking, or whether she was overloaded. That is why it is necessarily the less accurate measure for the object of the exercise.

And, how can you possibly remark that the remains indicate no greater hull size when: Increased tonnage in a rebuild can only be explained by increased size, due to the simple fact that hull volume is the only "tonnage" that the 16th century English measured their ships by, and that a full report on the remains has never been published?

A 100+ft. section of the hulk, virtually the whole of the starboard hull which was buried in the silt for over 430 years, is sitting in a preservation dock at Portsmouth. This comprises most of the ship's overall length of 147 ft. (according to record) save for the bow section which may finally have been discovered in 2003. There is no evidence for the ship's structure being radically altered.

Um, that tank test experiment was executed in two parts: in both the model was loaded with the scale weights representing armament and crew. During the first test it moved and turned with no problem. In the second test a fan produced a sudden gust in scale represeting the winds which unexpectedly blew up at the moment she was making her turn and heeled the model over until her gunports dipped into the water, after which it sank. The very experiment you refer to showed the ship was not sunk simply as a result of the weight she was carrying.

Um, that statement has absolutely nothing to do with what you've been arguing.

It certainly doesn't refute that those tests relied less on conjecture than any theory based on interpretation of eyewitness accounts.

Handwaving does not save you, and my response, though "not part of what I was arguing", was in specific reply to your specific assertion on this point that the test model sank only when the scale weights representing load were added. And those tests were designed to evaluate the validity of the eyewitness accounts, which you dismiss as "conjecture". What do you think the parametres of the experiments were based upon in the first place?

Continue tapdancing for as long as you think you can keep it up.

Keep ignoring the fact that I satisfied the conditions of that claim for as long as you think you can keep it up.

Either an idiot, or working for someone; definitely an idiot...

Your "B" speculation is utterly unsupportable, especially as you've done dick to provide anything remotely resembling factual backing for it and your "either A or B" dodge satisfies nothing in that regard no matter how many times you keep repeating it. You'd have done far better never to have made your little "idle speculation" in the first place.

No, you did not, no matter how much you dearly wish to believe you did. The observation regarding the roll of a dismasted vessel was not wholly reliant on Hoseason's testimony, was supported by the other work cited, and your continual handwaving does not make this go away no matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really want it to.

Just because you have lost track of what was being said in response to what, that does not mean everyone has.

Sayeth the man who has been guilty of that more than once in the course of this thread and has had it pointed out to him several times now.

If the paddlewheels were "great at acceleration", and the screw was incapable of driving the ship on its own or even getting it going under its own power...

Based on what?

Vague remarks about the development of steam engines?

"Historical fact" is what I think you mean to say here.

Why don't you think infromation on actual engine or propellor RPM for Great Eastern are needed to support this?

Another strawman. I do not ignore the rated values for the engine horsepower in both propulsion plants. But since I.K. Brunel did not design and build the ship to be driven solely by her screw engine, that alone is enough to suggest that it could not get the job done on its own.

—and with the assistance of her sails. You also neglected the fact that the screw was damaged in the storm, along with the rudder and the sidewheels.

The sails that were torn away as soon as they were set?

Excuse me, but Capt. Harrison did not set all of his sails in the storm as he reports in his letter to the company after the event.

Neccessitating emergency repairs to the rudder so the propellor engine could be started again to get the ship under control in the middle of a hurricane, is that what you're talking about?

After the weather moderated. No attempt at temporary repair was made during the worst of the storm.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies.

"...the frightful and dangerous rolling which is the inevitable consequence of this mode of propulsion" is an unequivocal statement; I'm not diagraming the fucking thing for you.

No, you're just cherry-picking the one statement while leaving off the overall context.

Strawman. I did not say the Great Britain was a failure, and your non-response does not refute the fact that even such a "triumph" was still limited in comparison to ships which were able to exploit fully the innovations which postdated Great Britain.

You can't strawman a non-argument.
You introduced an utterly pointless attempt at distraction with this entire tangent, it is not a matter of contention that engines developed further.

No, we started into this tangent on your hook entirely.

If there is a point, state it.

I have. At length.

Which was fine up until you attached a wholly unfounded speculation on your part.

The man's irrationality is jaw-dropping in the extreme; unfounded my ass.

His irrationality, as you put it, does not relate to the subject of your "B" speculation, which was, is, and will remain, until you can provide any hint of a fact behind it, baseless. You should have left off your "idle speculation" altogether.

Similarly, what motivation is there to explore whether J.C. Hoseason may have been bribed by "the paddlewheel steamship manufacturers"?

YES, finally!

Now we're getting somewhere!

When given "A or B" conditions, support for one precludes the need for support for the other.

See? You can do it!

I'm real proud of ya.

A cute but pathetic attempt at sarcasm does not erase the fact that you made an assertion you can't back up. No matter how much you think the "either A or B" dodge covers your ass.

What was the point in even mentioning it in the first place?

The man's nonsensical letter!

How does the content of his letter invite baseless speculation as to motive? If you wanted to attack Hoseason's grasp of the facts, there was sufficient ample ground to do so without unnecessarily implying some alleged ulterior motive in the process.