FULMINANT by HAIIAPHNK - French stern castle

[druxey]

Like many of us, you wish for a 'way-back' machine to see how it actually was. All we can do is make an educated guess.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Mark, thank you for sharing your explorations and conclusions. In a way, I have encountered a very similar situation. However, while you decided to reduce the number of windows to achieve a more harmonious composition, I am considering increasing the number of windows from three to four. And the fact that my solution is turning out to be rather unsuccessful is precisely what is causing my confusion.

I don’t like the original three-window version by Beren, mainly because of the very long second window. But the alternative of splitting it into two doesn’t satisfy me either. I realize that over time, the concept of aesthetic taste has changed significantly, and what was not an issue for Beren now causes discomfort for me. But how do I determine where to stop and say, "This is the ideal solution"? For example, I used to perceive some of his other decisions differently. But now the time has come to examine them more closely.

Previously, when I looked at the eagles beneath the windows, I somehow thought that Beren was illustrating different levels of protrusions and that the oddly halved eagle was actually the figure placed in the central segment of the stern, where the wreath with the ship’s name is located. From the side, it is partially visible, and I believed this was what the artist intended to depict.

 

 

But now I see that it is something else entirely. It is actually positioned on the side castle. L'Ambitieux uses the same approach, but instead of a bird, there is an ornamental scroll. Budriot depicted it in the same manner, as if it were an accidental misalignment. To me, it looks like a clear mistake or a flaw. I cannot call such a composition a successful design. However, neither Beren nor Budriot seemed to have any issue with it. And if that was considered acceptable, how should I perceive my own discomfort with the elongated window?

 

 

There are many conflicting elements here that raise questions for me. If we compare the design of the transom and the side castle, we can notice discrepancies. For example, the upper frieze below the windows, where the lion heads are depicted, maintains roughly the same visual rhythm. From both the transom and the side projection, this line is executed in a fairly consistent manner.

 

 

However, at the lower level, where the eagles are located, the situation is completely different. The space between the eagles on the transom is filled with ornamental decoration. But as soon as this same strip transitions onto the ship’s side, everything changes. There is no decorative embellishment between the eagles—just emptiness.

 

 

Why? I could continue further, but that would take our discussion too far. I am trying to determine the best way to resolve these emerging questions, but so far, I have not found an answer that satisfies me.

[HAIIAPHNK]

33 minutes ago, druxey said:

Like many of us, you wish for a 'way-back' machine to see how it actually was. All we can do is make an educated guess

 

Oh, yes, you're right! A thousand times right! I'd give a lot if I could go back to that time for one minute and see the ships with my own eyes. The only thing that reassures me is that science fiction is not on my side. And as soon as I get my hands on a time machine, I'm going to regret it. ))))).

[HAIIAPHNK]

4 minutes ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

I'm going to regret it. )))))

 

Ouch! I've already heard that the labeling of emotions differs from country to country. And in America they don't understand the way Russians draw emoticons. So I'll explain, I wanted to depict unrestrained laughter. This does not mean that I read chat and cut my nails ). I hope the meaning of the joke is clear and I didn't make my posts even weirder. (emoticon that is embarrassed)

[empathry]

I like your analogy with the Jules Verne's Nautilus ; with this fantastic decor made by Disney, including extra large glass portholes ... and even an organ ! ... but maybe should we stick a little more to historic reality as per the number of pierced portholes :

 

- We know that the Fulminant was pierced @ 14 for the lower deck ... there is no problem about it and this doesn't concern the port windows.

 

- For the mid deck, it was pierced @ 15 (for it's 18 pdrs guns) as the best reference historic study by Demerliac indicates ...

 

... anyhow, some other information indicates "pierced @ 14" ... but I am quite certain that "15" is more correct because the Orgueilleux and the Formidable, which were 1st rank vessels launched earlier (in 1690), were already pierced @15 for the 2nd battery, whilst their dimensions being a little bit shorter than the Fulminant (and the same is for the Ambitieux pierced @ 15 portholes for the 2nd battery).

 

Moreover, the Ambitieux, Fulminant's sister ship, had the (bad) reputation of being overgunned ... which was not good for its inner sailing maneuverability.

 

Honestly, this point (14 or 15 portholes for the 2nd battery) can be fairly discussed as there are as many "pro" examples" than "against" example (please refer to the attached files).   

 

(a) Then, PRACTICALLY, your model should (I suppose) show 15 portholes for the 2nd battery. 

 

In a logical point of view (and I rejoin here your conclusions), all the windows N°s 2 ; 3 and 4 should be false, because a real window with glasses would explose due to the blast of your own cannons when firing. 

 

Moreover, your idea for 4 windows instead of 3 may be interesting, as far as you can increment the 15 portholes REGULARLY along the hull of the vessel ; then, the question is : are the 15 portholes equally and regularly balanced with 3 or 4 false windows ?     

 

(b) Another alternative is to pierce it @ 14, if it appears that the implementation of the extra portholes (one or two) into the rear castle appears too inadequate or aesthetically disastrous.   

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by empathry

[empathry]

I beg you to listen carefully to me ; as I'm trying now my best to persuade you (for your own safety) that Time travel isn't possible, simply because the place you arrive at (after your Time travel) is a “normal” place where air molecules "normally"are (and maybe mosquitoes too and microbs) ... 

 

How are you going to (are you really able to) push-away those air molecules, mosquitos and microbs (which are taking your new body's emplacement) out of the way ?  

 

To avoid this, all you should have to do is travel back in Time, taking care to arrive in an 100 % free and empty place where there are NO other air molecules, NOR mosquitoes and NOR microbs ... i.e. in the absolute vacuum ... then you wouldn't have to “dislodge” all this stuff, while they wouldn't be present in such a perfect vacuum place ...

 

... but traveling through Time to find yourself into a perfect vacuum environment ... that's hardly an interesting hobby !

 

I HOPE IT HELPS !

 

Important notice :

 

Time travel is a dangerous business, so don't leave your kids alone when they're tinkering with weird machines without telling you what they'll be used for !

 

 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by empathry

[druxey]

Too true. I'm actually writing a novel on time travel using a steam powered machine. Definitely dangerous! 

 

On a more serious note, the 'blank' panel of the lower gallery is logical, as it balances another blank one on the foremost panel.