Sizzolo

Not much of an update - just adding some snaked seizing to the wormed end nearest the anchor. Reference: Boudroit '74 Book 3, p 104: "If a rope is simply wormed, (i.e. not parcelled and served as well), the worming must be secured at intervals by special seizing called snaked seizing." I'm just going to leverage that reference here for aesthetic reasons to make the model more interesting - there's no reference to say this was done at the anchor-end of a cable.

Happy halloween everyone. Apologies for nothing particularly scary apart from fiddly rope-work after a couple of whiskeys! Here's the end of the cable nearest the anchor - based upon assessment of a variety of sources so not necessarily accurate for 1800. A dose of my Stockholm tar mixture will neaten things up a bit.

You know what - I'm going to go with that. I've seen reference to serving, then rounding, and on top of that likely keckling and platting near the end of the cable. Aesthetically it looks nice, it won't take a million years (as with anything thinner by hand) plus I can do a short amount of serving with thinner stuff near the anchor, underneath this thicker 'keckling' to represent the multiple layers of protection (plus there'll be chains on top).

Brief test during the lunch hour on serving the cable. This is 0.7mm serving rope : too thick I think...

Better picture of the upper half (in daylight!)

Some very useful information here, and fantastic pictures: https://anthonylonghurst.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Signals-94_pp02-11_Endeavour-standing-rigging.pdf I'm hoping to make time to read his Anthony's other published works later: https://anthonylonghurst.com/#published I'm trying to identify the diameter of the serving rope. I can make a good estimate based upon pictorial evidence but it'd be nice to see a table with measurements.

More progress today. Work on some shackles for the chains. Anchor ring tarred with a mix of 75% boiled linseed oil, 25% Stockholm tar. Ends of the puddening received a thicker dose of Stockholm tar as I saw this in a reference (apologies, I need to start writing down references when I see them). Cable fully wormed. I’ll add some seizing at intervals near the ring before the starting point of the Keckling/ serving - so most of the worming will be hidden. I’ll try and take better pictures in sunlight when it’s all put together.

The fiddly bit is done!

I made some more progress. Still likely to finish the ring tomorrow. note, 13 strands chosen as it aligns with Steel’s estimate of the average (at least I think it was Steel… so many references). Due to a nicely working ropewalk I was able to calculate the exact diameter required. I also ran a quick test on applying thinned wood glue and then my mix of Stockholm tar (25%tar, 75% boiled linseed oil). The test was perfect - I was worried the glue would generate a barrier but the tar/oil still had a decent effect.

30mm after parcelling and puddening

Puddening the ring. Really fiddly! Lots of tweezer work. I don’t think I could do it at my normal 1/64 scale… Hope to finish my pudding tomorrow!

New ring progress. (Before rounding, using strip of old shirt lightly soaked in watered-down wood glue) WRT the cable. I think I’ll serve the whole thing but probably not parcel as it’s a real pain and has next to no effect other than turning the cable into a stick (also, invisible after the rounding) That’s another thing - I think the nomenclature has definitely changed over the years. Reading Steel (The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship) he refers to ‘serving or rounding’ and I read that to mean they are the same thing (in 1794) My remaining concern is whether a fully served cable end was bent to the anchor ring or if the end was left only wormed. Their procedures appear to show the cable was frequently bent and unbent to the ring. If the end was fully served I expect it was extremely difficult to manipulate around the ring due to how sturdy a fully served cable would be ( I.e not at all flexible!). I’ll do some more testing on my rounding before deciding, but from a model/display perspective it’d be nice to show the worming. Lastly, after more reading, and the help of Steel, I doubt chain was wormed directly to a cables contlines. It would have had the effect they’re trying avoid, creating friction between the core cable and metal chain. Steel describes chain to be added as a precaution and shackled to the ring - meaning , if the cable was cut on sharp rocks, the chain would remain and you could still retrieve the anchor. That’s my interpretation anyway. So - hopefully the end result of all these interpretations doesn’t cause too much controversy!

I actually like the idea of the ‘link-worming’ so might try that. Pics to follow, likely next week.

New book arrived - same as the online copy. It’s not on P67 that I saw so it’ll be later in the book. I prefer books to online reading anyway. Definitely doing a new thinner ring. The first was a good test of the method though. Shame, as it’s going to get destroyed when I remove it. We’ll always have the memories I guess! Made a new cable today which is neater and much tighter, and spot on for a 19cm diameter cable appropriate for a British ‘74 in 1/32. I’m getting to grips with the ropewalk now so the rope and cable is a lot better.

New copy of Levers book arriving today as I was previously working from an old online version which doesn’t have the same text quoted above. I’ll make a final decision today after reading. I’m thinking if Keckling was effectively worming cable with large rope this could adversely effect the carefully calculated physics of the cable by significantly increasing the weight. If it was laid in open fashion instead of every cantline this would reduce the added weight. Ring wrapping done but I’m still mot sure on thickness. Seems a bit too stout.