Lee, No doubt that big canoe or any small boat should be nice to drive around using steam power or similar hot-air engines, except for people who enjoy just inMessage 1 of 62 , Jul 1, 2012View SourceLee,No doubt that big canoe or any small boat should be nice to drive around using steam power or similar hot-air engines, except for people who enjoy just in rowing, paddling and similar propulsion for boats. With a fellow from USA (owner of small steam-engine and boat company), I had serious plans to build steam stuff in Serbia (where I lived then) for him in USA: from boilers and engines, to finished boats (metal hulls and wood carbines and interior). He even visited Serbia and during 4 weeks we found everything: workshops, equipment, materials... Alas, nothing from that plans, not even planed prototypes: one for me and one for him. Of course, that would be smaller steamers: up to 8 meters long and 2 meters wide, suitable for rivers or lakes (flat bottom, simple lines, double-enders)...Now, here in Swiss: one small boat enough for two of us, simple and cheap for shorter excursions and later one larger, more serious, but not big, for daily cruising, maybe used as over-night camper...Ciao, Zoran................,...............From: nutty_boats <nutty_boats@...>Zoran:
Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012, 1:13
Subject: [boatdesign] Re: kayak/canoe
--- In email@example.com, Zoran Pualich <motoklas@...> wrote:
as lover of steam-power of any kind and small boats too, I was surprised when saw such combination as steam-canoes, classic or modern. It seems to me too, that they used standard, classic canoe hulls, however - quite big. Low C.G. of heavy weight could give them enough of stability? Some boats on sent photos had hot-air, Stirling motors (not real steam engines) - and they are quite slow - faster would be with paddling.
But which was easier, or more fun?
Go ahead and design, then build. That is about the quickest way to learn. I would not build new copies of my earlier designs. Some of them I would call failures. Fortunately most of my failures were built as models for testing, and their failures helped me learn what features make for good designs.
More interesting pictures, thanks.
This is a good example of language corruption (according to some) or language change (according to others): sharpie originally referred to a particularMessage 62 of 62 , Jul 16, 2012View SourceThis is a good example of language corruption (according to some) or language change (according to others): "sharpie" originally referred to a particular design with a couple of minor variations. Lew well described the original definition; a sharpie, namely a boat with a length about six times the beam, height about 1/10 of the length, with a flat bottom, sharp chines and near vertical sides.
Cmd. Munroe with his Presto sharpie had the cross section of a dory, with about the same size as a sharpie. Later people called boats that were "fatties" with twice the beam or more for the same length "sharpies" merely because they had flat bottoms, sharp chines and vertical sides.
Now we come to the below:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Peter" <pvanderwaart@...> wrote:
> > And lots of people have borrowed the name in the hundred years or so since.
> For instance: http://www.rodgermartindesign.com/sail-portfolio/sharpies/
> I think PCB would have approved of these boats, but bewailed the high cost.
Interesting boats, but by 19th century standards, neither narrow nor sharpies. But the language has changed and "sharpie" is an undefined term, so if you want to call these boats "sharpies", then they are sharpies.
They look like fun boats.