amateur

Did some searchin gin the navy foto-archive.
Found three pics (Piet without doubt has them on his computer).
 
two of Java firing (one at daytime at full speed, one at night, and looking at the water: without speed at all)
 
 

and one of De Ruyter showing the burning hot gasses leaving the gun. IN the night-pic I can't discover whether or not we only see the center of the smoke-ball, or the total. IN that case, it is a fairly compact smoke-ball. Comparing it to the other two, I guess we see only the core of the smoke, that is lighter by the hot gasses.

 
Jan
 
 

Did some searchin gin the navy foto-archive.
Found three pics (Piet without doubt has them on his computer).
 
two of Java firing (one at daytime at full speed, one at night, and looking at the water: without speed at all)
 
 

and one of De Ruyter showing the burning hot gasses leaving the gun. IN the night-pic I can't discover whether or not we only see the center of the smoke-ball, or the total. IN that case, it is a fairly compact smoke-ball. Comparing it to the other two, I guess we see only the core of the smoke, that is lighter by the hot gasses.

 
Jan
 
 

Did some searchin gin the navy foto-archive.
Found three pics (Piet without doubt has them on his computer).
 
two of Java firing (one at daytime at full speed, one at night, and looking at the water: without speed at all)
 
 

and one of De Ruyter showing the burning hot gasses leaving the gun. IN the night-pic I can't discover whether or not we only see the center of the smoke-ball, or the total. IN that case, it is a fairly compact smoke-ball. Comparing it to the other two, I guess we see only the core of the smoke, that is lighter by the hot gasses.

 
Jan
 
 

Hi Piet,
 
That is a very nice result. And as you ask: I think the smoke from the stacks is convincing, the smoke from the guns is not.
 
I have three points of doubt:
 
1. the form: I was in the artillery during my military service (10 guys to man one gun, so I am not too surprised by the number of man standing to one gun). And one thing we learned: The smokeball from the gun has a strange form: once the shell leaves the gun, the first amount of smoke is blown sideways, at the same time the gumn recoils, and the remainder of the smoke trails the shell. It makes the smokeball a bit lengthened, but slightly wider at the point where it leaves the gun, but also: the end of the gun is covered in smoke just after firing. 
And also: the smoke ball is denser and darker in the middle, and more open at the outside, especially when there is some wind blowing.It is certainly not a round ball-like cloud (and of course: the size of the smokeball depending on quite a lot of factors).
 
2. the place were it is relative to the guns:  as the ship is going full speed, the smoke ball is not in the middle of the gun, but it trails the ship a bit.
 
3. : when you depict the gun while firing, the last smoke leaving contains burning powder, and is therefore colored different from the remainder of the smokeball.
 
In short: I like the result so far, but I think the gun-smoke needs some tuning.....
 
(below the only pic of a firing gun I have in my archive: A Dutch M114/39 shortly after firing a shell)

 
 
 

Did some searchin gin the navy foto-archive.
Found three pics (Piet without doubt has them on his computer).
 
two of Java firing (one at daytime at full speed, one at night, and looking at the water: without speed at all)
 
 

and one of De Ruyter showing the burning hot gasses leaving the gun. IN the night-pic I can't discover whether or not we only see the center of the smoke-ball, or the total. IN that case, it is a fairly compact smoke-ball. Comparing it to the other two, I guess we see only the core of the smoke, that is lighter by the hot gasses.

 
Jan
 
 

Hi Piet,
 
That is a very nice result. And as you ask: I think the smoke from the stacks is convincing, the smoke from the guns is not.
 
I have three points of doubt:
 
1. the form: I was in the artillery during my military service (10 guys to man one gun, so I am not too surprised by the number of man standing to one gun). And one thing we learned: The smokeball from the gun has a strange form: once the shell leaves the gun, the first amount of smoke is blown sideways, at the same time the gumn recoils, and the remainder of the smoke trails the shell. It makes the smokeball a bit lengthened, but slightly wider at the point where it leaves the gun, but also: the end of the gun is covered in smoke just after firing. 
And also: the smoke ball is denser and darker in the middle, and more open at the outside, especially when there is some wind blowing.It is certainly not a round ball-like cloud (and of course: the size of the smokeball depending on quite a lot of factors).
 
2. the place were it is relative to the guns:  as the ship is going full speed, the smoke ball is not in the middle of the gun, but it trails the ship a bit.
 
3. : when you depict the gun while firing, the last smoke leaving contains burning powder, and is therefore colored different from the remainder of the smokeball.
 
In short: I like the result so far, but I think the gun-smoke needs some tuning.....
 
(below the only pic of a firing gun I have in my archive: A Dutch M114/39 shortly after firing a shell)

 
 
 

Hi Piet,
 
That is a very nice result. And as you ask: I think the smoke from the stacks is convincing, the smoke from the guns is not.
 
I have three points of doubt:
 
1. the form: I was in the artillery during my military service (10 guys to man one gun, so I am not too surprised by the number of man standing to one gun). And one thing we learned: The smokeball from the gun has a strange form: once the shell leaves the gun, the first amount of smoke is blown sideways, at the same time the gumn recoils, and the remainder of the smoke trails the shell. It makes the smokeball a bit lengthened, but slightly wider at the point where it leaves the gun, but also: the end of the gun is covered in smoke just after firing. 
And also: the smoke ball is denser and darker in the middle, and more open at the outside, especially when there is some wind blowing.It is certainly not a round ball-like cloud (and of course: the size of the smokeball depending on quite a lot of factors).
 
2. the place were it is relative to the guns:  as the ship is going full speed, the smoke ball is not in the middle of the gun, but it trails the ship a bit.
 
3. : when you depict the gun while firing, the last smoke leaving contains burning powder, and is therefore colored different from the remainder of the smokeball.
 
In short: I like the result so far, but I think the gun-smoke needs some tuning.....
 
(below the only pic of a firing gun I have in my archive: A Dutch M114/39 shortly after firing a shell)

 
 
 

Hi Piet,
 
That is a very nice result. And as you ask: I think the smoke from the stacks is convincing, the smoke from the guns is not.
 
I have three points of doubt:
 
1. the form: I was in the artillery during my military service (10 guys to man one gun, so I am not too surprised by the number of man standing to one gun). And one thing we learned: The smokeball from the gun has a strange form: once the shell leaves the gun, the first amount of smoke is blown sideways, at the same time the gumn recoils, and the remainder of the smoke trails the shell. It makes the smokeball a bit lengthened, but slightly wider at the point where it leaves the gun, but also: the end of the gun is covered in smoke just after firing. 
And also: the smoke ball is denser and darker in the middle, and more open at the outside, especially when there is some wind blowing.It is certainly not a round ball-like cloud (and of course: the size of the smokeball depending on quite a lot of factors).
 
2. the place were it is relative to the guns:  as the ship is going full speed, the smoke ball is not in the middle of the gun, but it trails the ship a bit.
 
3. : when you depict the gun while firing, the last smoke leaving contains burning powder, and is therefore colored different from the remainder of the smokeball.
 
In short: I like the result so far, but I think the gun-smoke needs some tuning.....
 
(below the only pic of a firing gun I have in my archive: A Dutch M114/39 shortly after firing a shell)

 
 
 

Hi Piet,
 
That is a very nice result. And as you ask: I think the smoke from the stacks is convincing, the smoke from the guns is not.
 
I have three points of doubt:
 
1. the form: I was in the artillery during my military service (10 guys to man one gun, so I am not too surprised by the number of man standing to one gun). And one thing we learned: The smokeball from the gun has a strange form: once the shell leaves the gun, the first amount of smoke is blown sideways, at the same time the gumn recoils, and the remainder of the smoke trails the shell. It makes the smokeball a bit lengthened, but slightly wider at the point where it leaves the gun, but also: the end of the gun is covered in smoke just after firing. 
And also: the smoke ball is denser and darker in the middle, and more open at the outside, especially when there is some wind blowing.It is certainly not a round ball-like cloud (and of course: the size of the smokeball depending on quite a lot of factors).
 
2. the place were it is relative to the guns:  as the ship is going full speed, the smoke ball is not in the middle of the gun, but it trails the ship a bit.
 
3. : when you depict the gun while firing, the last smoke leaving contains burning powder, and is therefore colored different from the remainder of the smokeball.
 
In short: I like the result so far, but I think the gun-smoke needs some tuning.....
 
(below the only pic of a firing gun I have in my archive: A Dutch M114/39 shortly after firing a shell)

 
 
 

Have a safe trip.
and gefeliciteerd met de verjaardag van je moeder!
 
Jan

Nice progress!
Jan

Have a safe trip.
and gefeliciteerd met de verjaardag van je moeder!
 
Jan

Have a safe trip.
and gefeliciteerd met de verjaardag van je moeder!
 
Jan

Have a safe trip.
and gefeliciteerd met de verjaardag van je moeder!
 
Jan

But as you guys all climb the roof, I will take the empty spot just next to his work bench. I need to be close, as my eyesight is not good enough to folow the work from some distance. Hope you don't mind. I'll honestly try not to spill my popcorn crumbs over his freshly painted parts.
 
Jan

Nice progress!
Jan

Nice progress!
Jan

Nice progress!
Jan

Have a safe trip.
and gefeliciteerd met de verjaardag van je moeder!
 
Jan

This video was made for the 100th anniversary of the loss of Titanic's sister ship, refitted as His Majesty's Hospital Ship Britannic, in 1916 after she struck a German mine in the Adriatic Sea.
 
This video is about an hour long, since that was how long the real ship took sink. Great special effects with the camera angle constantly changing. Interspersed, there are eyewitness accounts and historical facts. Amazingly, very few people were lost. Enjoy the hour:
 
 
 

Have a safe trip.
and gefeliciteerd met de verjaardag van je moeder!
 
Jan

Nice progress!
Jan

But as you guys all climb the roof, I will take the empty spot just next to his work bench. I need to be close, as my eyesight is not good enough to folow the work from some distance. Hope you don't mind. I'll honestly try not to spill my popcorn crumbs over his freshly painted parts.
 
Jan

But as you guys all climb the roof, I will take the empty spot just next to his work bench. I need to be close, as my eyesight is not good enough to folow the work from some distance. Hope you don't mind. I'll honestly try not to spill my popcorn crumbs over his freshly painted parts.
 
Jan

But as you guys all climb the roof, I will take the empty spot just next to his work bench. I need to be close, as my eyesight is not good enough to folow the work from some distance. Hope you don't mind. I'll honestly try not to spill my popcorn crumbs over his freshly painted parts.
 
Jan