Mark P

I’d like to thank the admins for what they do. Great  work! 

It's not an issue with MSW, per se, but with an assigned block of IP numbers that isn't specific to our server.
 
Our host is trying to get this sorted with the company that they use for this purpose, and it's taking time. The site may appear, then disappear. 
 
Unfortunately for MSW admin, we are powerless to do anything. We just have to wait for the issues between the two companies, to be resolved.

Do read the planking articles posted on this site!

Couldn't agree more!
 
Steven

Never mind the gravestones and artefacts; show us the hull!!!
 
John

You are not alone Amalio!
Allan

Hi Gary.
I am in love with your model and your workshop.

Hi Jonathan
 
I use Gutermann Mara thread for all my rope, having read Chuck Passaro's description of it (see here for more information).  Chuck's Syren Rope Rocket is great for running up your own rope, and like you I use the Syren machine for serving. For the latter I use the thinnest Mara thread I could find - #150. You can use black if you wish but personally I prefer very dark brown, partly for realism (the Stockholm tar used on standing rigging was not black) and partly because pure black looks too stark to my eye. Details of the colours I use are in the link.
 
Here's some pictures of the serving line in use, to illustrate how it can create an eye:
 
    
Hope this helps
 
Derek

An Upright Hull at Last
 
Thought I’d share a few photos of my Winchelsea hull upright.
 
I thought about what would be easier to do now than later in the build, following the always good practice of reading ahead.

I drilled out the rudder port. To line it up I cut out a copy of the counter frieze and loosely taped it to the counter (I’ll get a better fit, only concerned about the rudder port) after cutting out the black area representing the port, drew a pencil line, drilled a hole, and worked my way out with a #11 blade and sanding sticks. I pulled out the rudder pieces from Chapter 5 and held the two parts together that pass through the port (the dark line shown in the photo is the rudder) to confirm the hole was big enough. I stopped well short of the black line, I’ll adjust later as needed. The still unassembled rudder went back in the bag.

I used the jig from Chapter 10 to determine the height of the stern frames and cut them down about 1/8th higher than the jig to allow for future adjustments. Why not paint them black, as they eventually must be, while I’m at it. I will admit I broke one during the hull planking, fortunately it was a clean break and easily glued back together. I waited until the planking was complete, it has bothered me looking at it all that time. Now it’s fixed.

Finally I painted the stem. It was always going to be black, I’d rather deal with occasional touch up and get it done now while it’s relatively easy to do.

With that the hull is prepped and ready for the next steps, the transom, upper counter, and quarter galleries - can’t wait.  Once again, excuse the rushed iPhone photos with their work light glare.
 
As always thank you for stopping by with your likes and your comments. I really appreciate it.

For those wishing to go down the gun carriage rabbit hole see the link below. 
 
https://thescholarship.ecu.edu/bitstream/handle/10342/7250/BUNYARD-MASTERSTHESIS-2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Good Morning Alan;
 
The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Good Morning Alan;
 
The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Good afternoon Mark,
 
This is quite a fundamental statement indeed. In my opinion negative absolute statements in science are impossible. You cannot prove a negative statement and absolute statements makes a sound and thorough discussion impossible. For me, the very basis of science is a non judgemental approach to the question what the reality around us consists of. And absolute statements are not part of that approach.
You state it correctly, an absolute statement provokes an absolute necessity, which makes every discussion superfluous.
I think I have shown that there are reasons to suppose, beyond reasonable doubt, technical drawings were made in the seventeenth century Dutch Republic.
And it doesn’t matter if you make a distinction between drawings showing the hull shape or the layout of the interior of the ship. A technical drawing is a technical drawing.
 
I am a shipwright and I approach the books of Nicolaes Witsen and Cornelis van Yk from a practical perspective. If I can deliver a description of what is described in those books in a general, understandable and verifiable manner, than that is science for me. To that end I use Hitchens’s razor. According to Wikipedia:
 
“Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor (a general rule for rejecting certain knowledge claims) that states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.The razor was created by and named after author and journalist Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011). It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. Hitchens used this phrase specifically in the context of refuting religious belief”.
Absolute statements tend to cling to religious belief. Can you take someone serious who makes these kind of absolute statements in a scientific debate? Well, I don’t.

Good Morning Alan;
 
The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Good Morning Alan;
 
The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Good Morning Alan;
 
The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Good Morning Alan;
 
The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Good Morning Alan;
 
The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

If the photography is not professional, the model certainly is, Gary!

Thought I would add some close up photo's of Montague.  I was on the NRG site and came across the article by Kurt on taking photo's of ones work and figure I needed to practice  a bit. Guess I have to find a little space for a photo booth when  taking good photo's of my ship.  Well guys one day maybe I get the hang of taking good photo's, hope you enjoy the close up. Gary

Hi All,
 
As I follow many of the outstanding examples of nautical history here on MSW, I am continually amazed at the artistry and intricacy that went into the building of a wooden ship that went out to sea and got blasted to splinters. All the carvings, fancy railing, all the way down to the furniture I imagine. I thought about this while watching tall ship movies as the ships got cannon ball-itis, but seeing the examples of ships with their artistry and color that are made here on MSW just makes my head spin. 😀 Its a pleasure to constantly watch and view such wonderful works that keep nautical history alive.

Good Afternoon Allan;
 
The 1788 document gives the dockyards discretion to issue carronades as best suits the ship's qualities. So after this date (and presumably sometimes before) the arrangement could have been non-standard, as your sources indicate.
 
I have a further letter on the matter, dated 1782, which instructs the Navy Board to see that ships capable of bearing the weight of them are to have 68 pdr carronades on the forecastle, with lesser vessels having either 42 or 32 pdrs on the forecastle. The same letter states that the intention is for these to annoy the enemies' rigging, so they would probably be mounted in a position to bear more on the broadside than as a bow-chaser, where the longer barrelled cannon were used. 
 
If you would like the pages as images you can see better let me know, and I'll send them over.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Allan;
 
When carronades were first introduced, they were (if I recall correctly; might be wrong!) only issued to a ship at the captain's request. It was also his decision (and presumably the gunner's) as to where they were to be sited. 
 
See below pictures of contemporary letters on the subject, from 1779 & 1788
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 

Good Afternoon Allan;
 
The 1788 document gives the dockyards discretion to issue carronades as best suits the ship's qualities. So after this date (and presumably sometimes before) the arrangement could have been non-standard, as your sources indicate.
 
I have a further letter on the matter, dated 1782, which instructs the Navy Board to see that ships capable of bearing the weight of them are to have 68 pdr carronades on the forecastle, with lesser vessels having either 42 or 32 pdrs on the forecastle. The same letter states that the intention is for these to annoy the enemies' rigging, so they would probably be mounted in a position to bear more on the broadside than as a bow-chaser, where the longer barrelled cannon were used. 
 
If you would like the pages as images you can see better let me know, and I'll send them over.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Allan;
 
When carronades were first introduced, they were (if I recall correctly; might be wrong!) only issued to a ship at the captain's request. It was also his decision (and presumably the gunner's) as to where they were to be sited. 
 
See below pictures of contemporary letters on the subject, from 1779 & 1788
 
All the best,
 
Mark P