This is wonderful material. Thankyou for the reference, I had only glossed over it before. It goes a long way, seeming to connect many passing, less complete,Message 1 of 22 , Oct 2, 2005View SourceThis is wonderful material. Thankyou for the reference, I had only
glossed over it before. It goes a long way, seeming to connect many
passing, less complete, PCB sharpie-hull observations made elsewhere.
However, I take your point to be that PCB does not claim SOP-BFT.
Regarding this, or SO[U]P, or any theory, is your point made? For
1) In this chapter, these first two paragraphs, in reply, bring the
reader up to speed on earlier unspecified comments about the bad
effects of hard chines referred to in the letter of request; yet,
2) Presented are observations and applications without recourse to
underlying theory, for instance (and limited here to an obvious
subset from merely the physical sciences): neither Bolger, Hunt,
Munroe (insight?), Euler, (Daniel) Bernoulli, nor Newton.
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ) Indeed, it is no stretch to comment that also in
the thirteenth paragraph there is neither a recourse to Einstein;
3) Further, an analogous example, Newton's fluxional calculus from
at least 1666, circulated in manuscript form amongst his friends in
and after 1669 though no account was printed until 1693. Today his
work is somewhat overlooked due to a different notation (John
Bernoulli's?) being adopted. ( 9 )
That recourse by PCB to theory is not prolixly made, is not to deny
Bolger has claimed a theory, Flow Theory, and has not repudiated
here, or elsewhere to my knowledge, that when serving up that theory
he sometimes offers SO[U]P.
(5) Is PCB also onto this in the after-body? "The vortices steal
energy from the main flow and mix it into the wake flow and thus
reduce the effective length of the wake. This is Mother Nature's
explanation, we simply call it reduced drag."
(7) http://www.ikarus342000.com/Avorart.htm or
(8) http://aerodyn.org/Drag/drag.html or http://tinyurl.com/cf4no
--- In email@example.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
> For the record, Bolger's theory on water flow in sharpies iscontained
> in the first two paragraphs of his writeup (not the first two
> paragraphs of the chapter) of Presto Cruiser in Boats With An Open
> No mention of peas.
... I think that essentially the same thinking may have been written in other places as well, but I don t remember any place in particular to look. I m notMessage 1 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005View Source
> This is wonderful material. Thank you for the reference, I had onlyI think that essentially the same thinking may have been written in
> glossed over it before. It goes a long way, seeming to connect many
> passing, less complete, PCB sharpie-hull observations made
other places as well, but I don't remember any place in particular to
I'm not sure that Bolger's "theory" actually rises to the level of a
scientific "theory." That might require refinement. For example, if we
had a formula for a critical point
f(loa, beam, speed, rocker, heel) = BC (Bolger constant)
such that a hull on the good side of BC has good flow and a hull on
the bad side of BC has bad flow, then we would have a theory that sits
up and talks. As as far as I know, it's more of a postulate (or some
other weaker form).
Quite possibly, the theory of turbulance has some critical point
theory that could be applied to chines.
I stuck my little toe into the calculus of variations, led there (as
perhaps many are) by the claim that Newton invented it and used it to
determine the hull shape of least drag. Newton, as it happens, did not
know enough about ships and water to make the result very interesting
Your point about notation is interesting. We tend to forget that the
notation and proofs that we see for the great theorms are often very
different from the originals. (I once went to a lecture on how Cauchy
proved Cauchy's theorem.) As I recall, our usual calculus notation is
due to Liebnitz, and the use of the "dot" for the derivative used in
calculus of variations is closer to Newton's notation. Or maybe I have
Pythagoreans were flummoxed by the irrational number. Though it was consistent, with mathematically expressed theory and remains so, it was suppressed forMessage 1 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005View SourcePythagoreans were flummoxed by the irrational number. Though it was
consistent, with mathematically expressed theory and remains so, it
was suppressed for centuries. It did not accord with the vision. Not
contingent. Nowadays for acceptance a scientific work need be
published in an appropriate refereed journal, as was the case in
Einstein's day. Mr E is misused a lot, is he not, and I would beg
his indulgence, but the exception proves the rule. Before the math,
and those competent say it is not of the most difficult kind, came
thought. In one case, about observers observing from various vantage
points. He actually thought about watchers on and around choo-choo
trains on tracks. The vision tackled theory, the math with work
followed to later describe, and later still came supporting
experiment. Ramanjuran saw, no doubt, mostly what may not be seen
again for centuries, and though mathematically most gifted it's of
little help to others in beholding the vision. Cryptic pointers,
publication eluded. Yes, Bolger's visionary theory needs refinement
as well as elaboration. There are some readily apparent (even to me)
simple mathematical relationships between the factors mentioned, as
Bolger occaisionally points out. Someone may derive the GUFF ( grand
unified flat-panel flow?), and a signatory formula such as E=mc2, or
f()=BC, or SO[U]dxP. And so for this criteria the nub: To go along
is to get along, for professional peer-reviewed orthodoxy it is
esssential, but would it change the Flow? It might be a different
PCB. Cats in boxes.
verytasty boxed wine veritas? ;)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
> I'm not sure that Bolger's "theory" actually rises to the level ofa
> scientific "theory." That might require refinement.
... I am not sure PCB would agree. After all, the Bolger box boat, (the ones with equal curvature sides and bottoms) are cruisers, not racers. They areMessage 1 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005View Source
> Bolger's visionary theory needs refinementI am not sure PCB would agree. After all, the Bolger box boat,
(the ones with equal curvature sides and bottoms) are cruisers,
not racers. They are no-compromise practical boats made
from low tech but efficient modern materials.
What matters most is real world function, (needing only real
world accuracy). Calculation to a fraction of a decimal point,
for boats like this, *has* no point.
PCB designs his boats; not from equations and computers,
but from the experience and artistry of his fertile mind.
Splitting of hairs could not improve on that.
[Consider the difference between art and science.]
... Blah blah blah ... I don t see why this SOP issue constantly comes up here all the time, and on other boating lists as well. Phil Bolger is not dead, youMessage 1 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005View Source
>> Bolger's visionary theory needs refinementBlah blah blah ...
>I am not sure PCB would agree.
I don't see why this SOP issue constantly comes up here all the time, and
on other boating lists as well. Phil Bolger is not dead, you know? So
why don't one of you just fax him and ask him about it? What could
possibly be simpler?
Or are you all afraid that your individual theories about his theory will
... Well, you could, ;-) but I m inclined to think if I had stumbled into Bolger ( a consequence of stumbling onto the quarterly AABB , wherein I firstMessage 1 of 22 , Oct 5, 2005View Source
> WHY don't one of you just fax him and ask him about it? What couldWell, you could, ;-) but I'm inclined to think if I had stumbled
> possibly be simpler?
into Bolger ( a consequence of stumbling onto the quarterly 'AABB',
wherein I first heard of Bolger, a consequence in turn of collecting
at the newstand the monthly 'Australian Sailing' [which may never
mention Bolger], a consequece of engaging my kids in boating and
club sailing....) say, thirty years ago instead of five, then I may
have. As it is, I think he would have plenty of urgent work in
progress, it is not trivial, it is already in the body of his
writings and design work, and I would expect it to be further dealt
with in the eventual "square - the works" book. And even if it is
spelt out by him, discussion would not cease, but be enriched.
19( ) - ( ) me, and
1927 - ( ) PCB, and
1908 - 1978 C Raymond Hunt, about whom according to C Raymond Hunt
Associates biography and history webpages
"...Ray "clearly had an uncanny ability to rethink the very concept
of what a boat should be and how it should be able to perform.
During flashes of inspiration, everything was reduced in his mind's
eye to a boat's elemental components. Hunt was then able to put to
paper the form of the boat envisioned.... His apparent, uncanny
knowledge of how to move a boat through the water forms a skill no
tank test or formula can replicate.... Ray Hunt, whose work was
marked by great variety and success, was one of the most innovative
designers of his time." ,and
Of whom Bolger writes, " Hunt started with a plywood box. Out of
HIS INSIGHT INTO THE BEHAVIOUR OF MOLECULES he rockered the
bottom and pointed the ends.... The profile sweep of the bottom was
dictated by hydrodynamics, which he grasped as few people
have...."(BWAOM pp 156-157).
. Yet he apparently did not get this PERSONALly in the MAIL from
Hunt for: "Anything Hunt did was worth pondering. Incidently, HIS
WORK supports my opinion that sharpies are best without flaring
sides." (BWAOM p153), and
18(??) - 19(??) Commodore Ralph Munroe. Pre- Hunt's professional,
and PCB's times. Who "... did in Presto, in 1885... (BWAOM p 258)
the form... evolved out of the working sharpie (having) more
virtuosity and less viciousness. (FS p69)", yet Bolger
follows "Hunt's INSIGHT in sharpie design rather than Ralph
Munroe's ..." (BWAOM p119).
Reasonably, PCB clearly has had the 'do-not-disturb-sign' out for a
long time, and lamentably, I could fax neither Munroe, nor Hunt.
--- In email@example.com, "James Greene" <jg6892@g...> wrote:
> >> Bolger's visionary theory needs refinement
> >I am not sure PCB would agree.
> Blah blah blah ...
> I don't see why this SOP issue constantly comes up here all the
> on other boating lists as well. Phil Bolger is not dead, you
> why don't one of you just fax him and ask him about it? What could
> possibly be simpler?
> Or are you all afraid that your individual theories about his
> be wrong???
> James Greene