Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lmagna

  • Birthday 06/19/1949

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Everett Washington
  • Interests
    Modeling, hiking, camping, reading

Profile Fields

  • Full NRG Member?
    MSW Member

Recent Profile Visitors

306 profile views
  1. Hello wefalck I think what is going on here is not so much that the people cannot do the math, but that sometimes it is easier to use a “cheat sheet” or other assisting tool to do whatever mathematical conversion is needed. I cannot think of an area of human endeavor where people who work or indulge in that area do not at some point or another create some kind of mathematical shortcut to assist in their work. Why should modeling be any different? We convert sizes, change back and forth between imperial and metric measurements, work in decimals, fractions and number drills and many other mathematical disciplines. Why not take or create a shortcut to save having to do repetitive calculations or having to commit conversions to memory? Lou
  2. Snow It looks like you are well along with your build and its looking good. I suspect that with the large crews and other stuff a pirate ship had to carry in what was after all normally a relatively small ship, "getting around" was a bit hard no matter what. Cathead Definitely relevant and interesting. I also use spread sheets when doing initial research and drawings, (Even though I use Excel because "I have it"). I find it useful when you are converting a bunch of stuff from "real" sizes to model size even though after a while when you are working only in one scale it almost becomes automatic, especially if you are working in the more common drafting scales. When building a kit, conversions and the such I think do not come up as often. I also tend to prefer using metrics when modeling even though as a native American I use imperial measurements in everything else. It seems so much easier to measure out 28 mm than it is to do 1 1/8" for some reason, and of course multiplying or dividing metrics is far easier than doing it in fractions. Again doing it in your head is pretty much common for most people as you don't need to convert anything. Lou
  3. John Paul Jones: The Song

    I think that John Paul Jones and Sink The Bismark were the only two nautical songs Horton did in his "History" songs. I loved them all when I was young.......... What am I saying? I still love them! My grand kids kind of look at me sideways whenever I play MY music!!! Lou
  4. Hello Snow A 5'8" person at 1/60 scale would be: 68/60= 1 1/125 (+) or just slightly over 1 1/8" or 28.7 mm. (29 mm rounded) You can get figures at these sizes but matching the clothing for the time period/ country you are building for might be a little harder. Lou
  5. I think hat canopy beds were also useful in the summer with lighter material to keep out bugs at night while possibly sleeping with the windows open. Lou
  6. Chuck I was kind of wondering about the length of bed comment in the news article as well, but somewhat wrote it off as possibly news writer editorial rather than a researcher quote. I only used the article as it was short and somewhat already digested for the reader. I have visited period residences, in fact I kind of live in one as my house is about 120 years old. In the cases of visiting and staying in 200+ year old homes in New England I noted that the ceilings were much lower and the rooms smaller in the working class homes, (I assumed that was to conserve heat) while in the more wealthy homes the ceilings were much higher, had more windows, and in many cases the rooms were larger. In many respects they were really not all that different than the house I live in that was built about a hundred years later. I must admit that I did not pay much attention to the beds in the common homes I visited but I suspect most if not all of the furnishing in those homes were recreations anyway so may or may not have been historically accurate. In the more upper class homes that I did stay in, it was noted by the owners that the furniture was composed of historical antiques even though not necessarily native to the home where I was staying. In the case of the beds they were comfortable enough for even myself and I am somewhat tall, (Or at least I was at the time). They fit my wife even better. I would compare the size to what I will call a slightly wider modern day twin bed that was also very high off the floor or a slightly narrower and shorter Queen size bed.. Two people while not overly crowded had to be very good friends to be comfortable. I also have to agree with Wefalck in that this bed design does conserve body heat, especially when sharing a bed with another person. I believe this was also fairly common hundreds of years ago, at least in working class homes. Lou
  7. Might as well add mine as well. Running Uniform 4.2 PC on Windows 7 Google Chrome
  8. I also agree with you on regional size. In my case it was when I arrived in country in Vietnam in the late sixties. I was 6'3", (190.5 cm) and the average male there seemed to be at least 12", (30.5 cm) shorter on the average. Women were even shorter! I again went though the same thing in reverse when I returned to the US almost overnight and not only was there a color change shock in the environment, but but all the people walking around were TALL! I think that as you indicate, the size of people on ships also was notable hundreds of years ago as the social order was much more stratified and officers in many cases probably came from upper class society and possibly tended to be somewhat taller and larger due better living conditions while growing up. Crewmen on the other hand, especially in European ships tended to come from lower classes of society resulting in somewhat smaller stature. I wonder if this was the case then did the harder working crewman have a huskier build on the average due to the physical nature of his life, or was he just "tougher"? Lou
  9. I think that in some ways we are missing the point when it comes to the size of people in scale. First off we are trying to compare average peoples size hundreds of years ago to people today. We tend to use the figure of 6', (1828.8 mm) as a standard. Other people are saying that that is too tall for people of the time periods we are modeling in and we should be using heights more like 5', (1524 mm) as a standard. Looking at several published papers it appears that most researchers are of the opinion that prior to 1700 people tended to be smaller than people in proceeding ages due to diet, disease, climate, (Global warming/cooling) geographical location, and other factors). One site that cover this somewhat is: https://ourworldindata.org/human-height/#human-heights-in-early-europeans Another even more simplified commentary, (And more related to the time and location of my interest) is: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/15/garden/american-men-of-1776-said-to-have-stood-tall.html?mcubz=0 So taking those and other research discussions into account I decided to use the figures of 5'6", (168 cm) to 6', (183 cm) as my range of historic male height and came up with these numbers at 1/50 scale: 6' = 1 11/25" @ 1/50 scale, or 183 cm = 36.5 mm @ 1/50 scale 5'8"= 1 9/25" @ 1/50 scale, or 173 cm = 34.6 mm @ 1/50 scale. (This could be considered to be the average height for the time span being considered) 5'6"= 1 8/25" @ 1/50 scale, or 168 cm = 33.5 mm @ 1/50 scale All the above numbers are rounded out by me. So looking at the above numbers in the scale used, there is a difference of 3/25" or 3 mm from short to tall, and this is at one of the larger scales being used by builders on this forum. When you run the numbers for smaller scales the difference becomes even smaller of course. I also found it interesting that Englishmen were shorter on the average than American men of the same time period, and Frenchmen even shorter! Just thought I would throw this out for whatever it was worth, hopefully its useful to someone. Lou
  10. Bob Go to your profile and enter the "settings". Click on "signature" In the composition box write in your entries/discriptions On the ones you want to link to highlight the text you want to become the link and click on the little chain on the task bar. In a separate window open the page you want to link to and highlight and copy the full http: address in the task bar on top. In the "link" window paste the address into the URL space and click "Insert into post" Repeat 3-6 for each link you want to create and hit "save" All should show up as links and direct you to the pages you chose. Hope that helps. Lou
  11. best kits

    Hello Snow Chuck is a member of this forum and the National Research Guild. He is also the owner of Syren Ship Model Company, a sponsor of this forum. https://modelshipworld.com/?_fromLogin=1 He sells kits, mini kits, and fittings of very high quality. As an example he offers a model of the British Revenue Cutter Cheerful. This could be considered a beginners kit or you could just buy the plans and make it a scratch build. He also offers a complete list of fittings and furniture to support this vessel so you can buy as few or as many "Mini kits" as you wish to help complete the ship. By being in the form of mini kits this can spread the cost over the time of the build as not only is buying them an option but you can wait to buy them when it comes time to use them. His instructions of course are top quality, possibly the best offered anywhere. He is also the designer of the 18th Century Longboat, the USF Confederacy, Brig Syren, and the 21 foot English Pinnace, all sold by Model Shipways. He is also responsible for the eight page kit enhancement practicum for the Sultana kit, also offered by Model Shipways. All of his work involves historically accurate models and is of the highest quality. Searches here on the forum can provide much more detail than I can offer. Hope that helps. Lou
  12. Hello Gregory A fence could just be another Popsicle stick cut to length and taped in place. A miter guide could almost be as simple even though I suppose you would need to cut a groove in the table and design a way to set the angle of the guide, all in miniature. I admit the higher cost of the higher quality motor and power source could run the cost up some but the rest of the build could be made from a sheet or two of 1/8" ply. About $6 per sheet at JOANNs for a 12' X 24". Kind of like a working model of a table saw. Another way would be to use a Dremel flexible shaft extension instead of the motor/power supply. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Extension-Cord-Flexible-Shaft-for-Rotary-Grinder-Tool-Dremel-Polishing-Chuck-/201654140221?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368 Almost all of us already have a rotary tool of some type laying about and the extension would run you less than $8. Doing it that way would also make the mounting easier and less costly as it would just be a matter of of chucking it up and turning it on. If you also made it hinge mounted you could then adjust the height and by changing the saw blade for a sanding wheel could also plane the wood thickness. Yes, all of these modifications have made a departure from the quick hot melt glue and scrap plastic approach, but for about the same cost but why build a somewhat useless toy when with a little more care and work you could possibly end up with something very usable for this hobby? Lou
  13. after a hurricane, has anybody modeled shipwrecks?

    Mark I had forgotten about that build. It was one of the first builds I looked at whan I first came to the site. (I wonder if that indicates that anything I will be able to build will be a wreck?) Too bad some of the links don't work anymore though. Lou
  14. I think I would look into hobby supply motors designed for either model aircraft or cars. Preferably one with high torque abilities. Same for the power supply. I don't think 24 watts would quite be up to the job. You could also get quite a lot of work done just using battery packs. Keep a spair pack handy and you could be quick charging one set while using the other. I also agree that making a proper table/base would make a much more useful tool even though a 1/4" table might be a little thick considering the small diameter of the blade. I wonder just how refined one could make something like this for use in small stock cutting jobs and ripping planks from wider stock? Lou