Jump to content

trippwj

NRG Member
  • Posts

    3,152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from mtaylor in Mathew Baker's early concept of ship hull design, ca. 1570   
    @T. Pevny
     
    Welcome - I have been following your publications and am pleased to see your Thesis. I first came across you via your website while you were developing your chapter on the La Belle. For what it's worth, which admittedly is not much, I agree with your interpretation of the hull.  One of the challenges of attempting, from 5 centuries removed, the conceptualization and design processes used based on relatively sparse archival records along with limited archeological evidence of various degrees of completeness.
     
    In the case of Mr. Baker, we have in his manuscript many examples of midship frames using varied sets of ratios - some more "reasonable" than others. Again, I have only had access to very small portions of Baker's Fragments so my views are based on secondary sources. Someday I hope to be able to review the full manuscript but, alas, with a budget of $2.50 that ain't likely any time soon!
     
    I think that the debate on the Mary Rose will continue for some time - the lack of archival documentation from the time concerning the design practice leaves nearly all interpretation open to disparate views. No reasonable way to say which is right, wrong, more likely, or whatever. We are trying to get in the mind of shipbuilders that used a design method based on ratios and other mysterious knowledge (hence the request by Pepys to Deane and others). 
    In addition to your study I am also working with Olaberria (2018) and the interpretation of ship design in Nowacki and Valleriani (eds, 2003) and Nowacki and Lefevre (eds, 2009) - there are some interesting studies included there.
     
    As you note, there is a difference between the approach of the "scholar" working with written materials (primary and secondary) and the approach you are using. Both have value. Both contribute to advancing our understanding. From the perspective of the model builder, understanding the approach used to develop the basic curves of a vessel where plans were not used can aid in developing a reasonable hull shape for the scale model. The actual builder from those many centuries past is probably the only person that can objectively judge the accuracy.
     
    Enough of my disjointed rambling. Thank you for engaging in this thread - I look forward to further dialogue in the future.
     
    Nowacki, H, and Matteo Valleriani, eds., Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, Preprint 245 ([Berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2003) <https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF> Nowacki, Horst, and Wolfgang Lefevre, eds., Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval Architecture: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison (Brill, 2009) <https://brill.com/view/title/16337> [accessed 4 October 2022] Olaberria, Juan Pablo, ‘Ship Design-Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Royal Yachts and the Shared Knowledge of Ship-Designers and Common Shipwrights’ (unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southampton, 2018) <https://www.academia.edu/36363637/Ship_design-knowledge_in_early_modern_Europe_Royal_yachts_and_the_shared_knowledge_of_ship-designers_and_common_shipwrights> [accessed 1 June 2020]
  2. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from T. Pevny in Mathew Baker's early concept of ship hull design, ca. 1570   
    @T. Pevny
     
    Welcome - I have been following your publications and am pleased to see your Thesis. I first came across you via your website while you were developing your chapter on the La Belle. For what it's worth, which admittedly is not much, I agree with your interpretation of the hull.  One of the challenges of attempting, from 5 centuries removed, the conceptualization and design processes used based on relatively sparse archival records along with limited archeological evidence of various degrees of completeness.
     
    In the case of Mr. Baker, we have in his manuscript many examples of midship frames using varied sets of ratios - some more "reasonable" than others. Again, I have only had access to very small portions of Baker's Fragments so my views are based on secondary sources. Someday I hope to be able to review the full manuscript but, alas, with a budget of $2.50 that ain't likely any time soon!
     
    I think that the debate on the Mary Rose will continue for some time - the lack of archival documentation from the time concerning the design practice leaves nearly all interpretation open to disparate views. No reasonable way to say which is right, wrong, more likely, or whatever. We are trying to get in the mind of shipbuilders that used a design method based on ratios and other mysterious knowledge (hence the request by Pepys to Deane and others). 
    In addition to your study I am also working with Olaberria (2018) and the interpretation of ship design in Nowacki and Valleriani (eds, 2003) and Nowacki and Lefevre (eds, 2009) - there are some interesting studies included there.
     
    As you note, there is a difference between the approach of the "scholar" working with written materials (primary and secondary) and the approach you are using. Both have value. Both contribute to advancing our understanding. From the perspective of the model builder, understanding the approach used to develop the basic curves of a vessel where plans were not used can aid in developing a reasonable hull shape for the scale model. The actual builder from those many centuries past is probably the only person that can objectively judge the accuracy.
     
    Enough of my disjointed rambling. Thank you for engaging in this thread - I look forward to further dialogue in the future.
     
    Nowacki, H, and Matteo Valleriani, eds., Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, Preprint 245 ([Berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2003) <https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF> Nowacki, Horst, and Wolfgang Lefevre, eds., Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval Architecture: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison (Brill, 2009) <https://brill.com/view/title/16337> [accessed 4 October 2022] Olaberria, Juan Pablo, ‘Ship Design-Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Royal Yachts and the Shared Knowledge of Ship-Designers and Common Shipwrights’ (unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southampton, 2018) <https://www.academia.edu/36363637/Ship_design-knowledge_in_early_modern_Europe_Royal_yachts_and_the_shared_knowledge_of_ship-designers_and_common_shipwrights> [accessed 1 June 2020]
  3. Like
  4. Like
    trippwj reacted to T. Pevny in Mathew Baker's early concept of ship hull design, ca. 1570   
    @Waldemar @trippwj @druxey @Mark P @B-Ram @Louie da fly @James H
    @Richard Endsor
     
    Dear Waldemar and other followers of this topic - I have never been active on any forum, so I hope I manage here. 
     
    I agree with Waldemar that despite numerous important articles etc. on Baker's Fragments... graphic analysis of the type he has been posting is rare. Rare - but not non-existent:) 
     
    The following is a link ( T. Pevny 2019 Early English Ship Design  ) to my MA 2019 thesis in which I present similar work on the same Baker drawing. It has about 60 pages of text and about 200 figures. Your work - Waldemar -  and mine led us in a similar direction. I hope everyone that reads it will find it interesting. If there is an interest - I would love to continue a discussion with all of you (posting images etc. as is common on this forum). I thank you Waldemar - because your posts made me finally make my study more widely accessible via Academia.edu.
     
    I know that  Waldemar  also posted his analysis of the Mary Rose design in a separate thread. He disagrees with the conclusions on the design in the published official volume on the hull. I agree with him - I also think the official analysis is flawed. This is also discussed in my study, with figures.  
     
    Waldemar - you also recommended that the design conclusions (as published) for the Basque whaler need re-examination. I agree - and I address this in my study along with a long look at the design theories of Brad Loewen. I hope others that commented recommending various articles that needed to be referenced will be satisfied by my literature review.
     
    I want to be clear - I am thrilled that Waldemar's graphic analysis led him to examine the Baker drawing and the Mary Rose. I have been a proponent of the need for similar graphic research. But:) Waldemar maybe your "bedside manner" needs a little work:) One thing you can count on in a forum such as this is the love and enthusiasm of the members for the subject. But I do understand your excitement!
     
    I am speculating with the following - but here it goes. Back in the late 1990s - early 2000s  I was working out my ideas on Mediterranean moulding and other design methods using models and countless drawings. I also had the privilege of dismantling and reassembling the remains of a small 17th century ship three times while working in a conservation lab. While doing this work - research and reconstruction drawings on French design and Mediterranean moulding - my ideas made me start seeing fundamental flaws in a series of design studies (whose conclusions were leaking out in Symposium presentations, articles..) on the Basque whaler, Mary Rose, an "Atlantic design method"... It was my thought that my graphic studies of Mediterranean moulding etc. were making me "see" things differently.
     
    I wonder - and would be thrilled if this was even a little so - that my published work influenced Waldemar in the same way.
     
    This past September  Waldemar  uploaded (with very kind words)  my study "Capturing the Curve: Underlying Concepts in the Design of the Hull" that  presents an early archaeological example of the French diagonal method of ship design as well as Mediterranean moulding. I am thrilled that 77 members of this forum downloaded it (it is public). Here is my link for it on Academia.edu T. Pevny 2017 La Belle design study
     
    The warmest greetings to all of you!
    Taras Pevny
  5. Like
    trippwj reacted to mgdawson in Lead sheathing in the 1760's   
    And potentially make her very stiff, I wonder if that's why they re-sheathed her with wood only 2 years later.
  6. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from druxey in Lead sheathing in the 1760's   
    Wonder how thick those plates were. At 0.25" each plate would weigh over 110# - that would certainly serve to lower the CG! Vertical edges probably not offset since lead was so malleable and could be "joined" with a mallet.
  7. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from mtaylor in Lead sheathing in the 1760's   
    Wonder how thick those plates were. At 0.25" each plate would weigh over 110# - that would certainly serve to lower the CG! Vertical edges probably not offset since lead was so malleable and could be "joined" with a mallet.
  8. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from BANYAN in Lead sheathing in the 1760's   
    Wonder how thick those plates were. At 0.25" each plate would weigh over 110# - that would certainly serve to lower the CG! Vertical edges probably not offset since lead was so malleable and could be "joined" with a mallet.
  9. Like
    trippwj reacted to druxey in Lead sheathing in the 1760's   
    Came across this interesting record of lead sheathing on the RMG site. Unlike copper, the vertical joints were not offset:
     
    https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-80442
     
    The top appears to have a protective wood batten at least 1' 0" wide. The plates appear to be 5' 0" x 1' 6".
  10. Like
    trippwj reacted to druxey in Mary Rose by Baker - scale 1/50 - "Your Noblest Shippe"   
    Various other AOTS books have shown to be problematic. Looks like this may be the case here. I suspect that MRNS is more reliable.
  11. Like
    trippwj reacted to garyshipwright in The arming and fitting of English ships of war 1600 to 1815 by Brian Lavery   
    Hi Dave  Am just a little late to the party but have one other book that will make a good addition to you small library. Peter Goodwin has a very wonderful book and I use it and Brain Lavery  all the time and would be a good asset for you. It's called  the Construction and fitting of the English Man of War.  Do believe you will be very happy with this one and really has lot's of good infor that one need's for building them.  Have fun. Gary
  12. Like
    trippwj reacted to James H in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    I agree.
     
    Topic locked.
  13. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from mtaylor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    As s matter of fact I do. I have also got many others, contemporary and later. I have spent time in each for various purposes. At some point I may even put something out comparing them.  In the interim I stand by my comments. We have offered evidence which you choose to either ignore or dismiss. That is your choice.
     
    Ultimately all I can do is offer alternative interpretation of information. What you opt to utilize or accept is your choice. How others interpret the information available is always an individual and personal choice.
     
  14. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from mtaylor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    @Waldemar
    The text from the 1620 treatise very specifically identifies that the narrative describes developing the lines for the 3 planes or projections. This would include:
    the plan view (a top-down view of the vessel)
    the profile view (a side-view of the ship)
    the body plan view (a view of the ends of the vessel)
     
    The absence of preserved ships plans from the early to mid 17th Century is not conclusive evidence that they were not used by the shipwright, but rather that they were not submitted to the cognizant naval administrators for review. It is fairly compelling evidence of their becoming a tool used during the conception and design process by the shipwright that they are identified in the 1620 treatise and, even more significant, included in Deane's "Doctrine" from 1670. In nearly every treatise from the 16th through the mid-19th Century the methods and approaches described reflect those undertaken during the previous decade (or more) and can be considered "common practice".
     
    As you and I discussed early in this thread, I did not think that the initial drawing represented a true scale body plan but rather some form of presentation drawing - art work - intended for other than construction use. The fact that it was done displaying an idealized version of a body plan is a strong indication that in 1656 body plans did exist - either that, or the artist created the view which was then embraced by shipwrights.
     
     
  15. Like
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    The absence of early ship plans is believed to be due to the Navy Office burning down in 1674, I think it was. Wouldn't it have saved us a lot of effort if they had survived. Even so, our early Navy records are incredibly intact compared with others, such as the Dutch.
  16. Like
    trippwj got a reaction from Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    @Waldemar
    The text from the 1620 treatise very specifically identifies that the narrative describes developing the lines for the 3 planes or projections. This would include:
    the plan view (a top-down view of the vessel)
    the profile view (a side-view of the ship)
    the body plan view (a view of the ends of the vessel)
     
    The absence of preserved ships plans from the early to mid 17th Century is not conclusive evidence that they were not used by the shipwright, but rather that they were not submitted to the cognizant naval administrators for review. It is fairly compelling evidence of their becoming a tool used during the conception and design process by the shipwright that they are identified in the 1620 treatise and, even more significant, included in Deane's "Doctrine" from 1670. In nearly every treatise from the 16th through the mid-19th Century the methods and approaches described reflect those undertaken during the previous decade (or more) and can be considered "common practice".
     
    As you and I discussed early in this thread, I did not think that the initial drawing represented a true scale body plan but rather some form of presentation drawing - art work - intended for other than construction use. The fact that it was done displaying an idealized version of a body plan is a strong indication that in 1656 body plans did exist - either that, or the artist created the view which was then embraced by shipwrights.
     
     
  17. Like
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    Dear Waldemar, I am so glad you decided to remain in the debate and not find other things to do. As regards the 1620 treatise which you seem fixed on, we should disregard it as the fixed sweep radii method described does not apply to the London.  Again, the treatise says quite clearly "We may now proceed to the drawing of the plot... in 3 several planes" (84v)". The third plane is the end view or body plan. That is very clear and it appears you keep mention of it as a diversion from explaining how the London plan was derived if it was not copied from a draught using the method described by Deane with fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth. You also asked what else would I like to know. I wish you would be so kind as to answer the question previously put to you. Please reconcile your statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765. It sounds crazy and if it is a mistake then please say so. We will not fall over laughing at your embarrassment but have the deepest sympathy and understanding.
  18. Like
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    So, in view of Waldemar not finding any reason to the contrary, it is safe to say the London's body plan must have come from somewhere and that it was copied from an original draught that the draughtsman has added detail to make decorative. The body plan lines have minor discrepancies but are exactly what one would expect for the draughting method using fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth as described by Deane's treatise. I have mentioned many other plans in this thread of a similar nature.
    I am sorry that Waldemar is too busy to continue and reconcile his statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765? With the deepest empathy, it appears Waldmar made a mistake and wishes not to address the problem. That is absolutely fine and I would not criticize him for that. As said earlier, I am only too ready to be a student and learn new things when persuaded by convincing argument. Live, learn and enjoy the pleasure of debate, I have.
  19. Laugh
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    Thank God I ain't a scholar. Me bottom of the class at school in Maths and English. School reports "must try harder" "more work, less chatter" a naughty boy, still am I hope. Bit knackered at the moment, done about 10 miles over the hills and through the woods to end up getting stuffed with food and filled with well-earned drink. And so to bed, as my hero would say.
  20. Like
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    Dear Waldemar, I quote you "The London 1656 body plan is by no means a copy of some other, e.g. builder's plans, as body plans on paper were not yet made at that time".  Although not applicable to London, the 1620 treatise has a body plan on paper, it really does, as plain as the nose on your face, even if it is interpreted as showing only one. As Brian Lavery said, Deane's work gives us the earliest complete plan of an English ship so it is unlikely any other plans survive from before that to present to you as evidence for your judgment. However, the London was designed in the method described by Deane and the London drawing has body plans made in the same manner. I deferentially ask you again, how else was it made? As the acknowledged best expert around, you say its "obvious inaccuracies" mean it can't be a true body plan. If it's so inaccurate then pray tell us, how did you manage to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765?
     
    Just remembered, I think one of the Keltridge draughts is of an early fourth rate, another which will undoubtedly satisfy your curiosity is the very clear and precise body plans of a 1677 ship complete with timber heads and sirmarks by Thomas Fagge and reproduced in Master Shipwright's Secrets, page 194. I really hope this helps answer your questions and eagerly look forward to your reply. Great debate init.
  21. Like
    trippwj reacted to mtaylor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    There's a big difference between a scholar and a researcher, IMHO.   Scholars generally seem to be living in their own world and need to justify their beliefs and writings.  A researcher generally follows the evidence and ideas.   I say this from having worked with both a long time ago. I say "generally" as there are exceptions to everything.
  22. Like
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    Waldermare appears to agree with my note (I think) he even repeats what I said. I would point out that a mould is the same as a template and if you are drawing lots of equally sized radii then using such a device saves time over using compasses whether on paper or in the mould loft. We should ignore the 1620 method in this debate with 3 fixed radii sweeps as it was not the method used on the London, but even in 1620, body plans were drawn as the author described. As mentioned earlier, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. Not only that but Deane describes drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow the actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would he have described body plans if they were not used? Please explain to this poor unfortunate student how the body plans mentioned above were produced if not by Deane's method.
  23. Like
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    Intrigued by the 1620 comments I had a quick browse over breakfast this morning. As suspected, the author not only includes the side and top views but also the body plans. In drawing the plot he mentions the 3 views and says the vertical plane of the depth and breadth is the plane of the bends (84v). Then "we must begin with the midship bend...out of which all the rest are drawn" (85v).  However, and I guess this is the cause of a Eureka moment, the design method should not be applied to the London's body plans as it relates to the earlier method of whole moulding where all three sweeps forming the bends are of fixed radius. The London having varying sweeps at the breadth. He then describes the rest of the plot and says the plot is finished, but then goes on to say "To draw therefore out of the midship bends all the rest according to the true draught of the plot" he then mentions using the arithmetic data from the rising and narrowing lines (93v). This could be interpreted as meaning the rest of the bends were marked out in a mould loft but I didn't notice or see if he says that in the text. Be that as it may, the ealy designers used a body plan although this method was not used to produce the London's body plan. So back in the real world I am just off with some mates for a walk in the Chiltern hills starting and ending at the Black Lion pub in Naphill, Buckinghamshire. I will be in there about 1.30 and if any of you are around I will buy you a drink.
  24. Like
    trippwj reacted to mtaylor in Harriet Lane - Who was she?   
    Doing some late night wandering on the Net, stumbled across this.  It might interesting for those who don't know who the ship was named after.
     
    The first woman dubbed First Lady was actually not the wife of a US president, but his niece! Harriet Lane, the niece of James Buchanan, is believed to be the first woman referred to using the title of First Lady. Buchanan was a lifelong bachelor who took over care of Lane after she was orphaned when she was 11 years old. Lane began to run in "fashionable circles" after moving in with Buchanan, who was the Secretary of State at the time. In 1854, Lane moved to London with Buchanan, where he was minister to the Court of St. James. Queen Victoria gave her the rank of an ambassador's wife, which would continue on into Lane's time in the White House, where she became incredibly popular and proved to be skilled when it came to hosting events.

    In 1860, Frank Leslie’s Popular Monthly described Lane as "The Lady of the White House, and by courtesy, the First Lady of the Land." By the 1870s, the term was widely used. Although most signs point to Lane being the first woman to be called First Lady, there is a bit of discrepancy in the matter. According to some historians, Andrew Jackson referred to Dolley Madison, wife of James Madison, as First Lady when delivering her eulogy in 1849. Others believe that the First Lady label was truly popularized in coverage of Lucy Webb Hayes, the wife of Rutherford B. Hayes.
  25. Like
    trippwj reacted to Richard Endsor in 2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright   
    I agree we need some time off to get some stuff done. I read the 1620 treatise a while ago but don't recall any amazing revelations and I don't feel like getting into it in a big way right now and reading the whole thing again. Please give us a page number as a clue. The London book was being written by a group of us including archaeologists and historians while Frank Fox was writing  a chapter about the guns. We were all doing our bit with proceeds going to the London Trust. Unfortunately poor Frank died rather suddenly and we are in bit of a hiatus at the moment. Waldemar, there is no need to call me "Mr Endsor", as a valued colleague please call me Richard.
×
×
  • Create New...