Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Seas of Peas (SOP) - Bolger Claim Found - Bolger Flow Theory (BFT)

Expand Messages
  • pvanderwaart
    For the record, Bolger s theory on water flow in sharpies is contained in the first two paragraphs of his writeup (not the first two paragraphs of the chapter)
    Message 1 of 22 , Oct 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      For the record, Bolger's theory on water flow in sharpies is contained
      in the first two paragraphs of his writeup (not the first two
      paragraphs of the chapter) of Presto Cruiser in Boats With An Open
      Mind.

      No mention of peas.

      Peter
    • graeme19121984
      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 2 of 22 , Oct 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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, 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
        here:

        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;
        and,

        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
        the theory.

        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.

        Graeme

        (1) http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

        (2) http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/RBallHist.html

        (3) http://tinyurl.com/b833l

        (4) http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/sail_boat/sail_boat.html
        or http://tinyurl.com/cbb66

        (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."
        http://www.mulsannescorner.com/vortexlift.html or
        http://tinyurl.com/cwmvd

        (6) http://www.adl.gatech.edu/classes/dci/aerodesn/dci03aero.html

        (7) http://www.ikarus342000.com/Avorart.htm or
        http://tinyurl.com/8xq93
        (8) http://aerodyn.org/Drag/drag.html or http://tinyurl.com/cf4no

        (9)
        http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton/RouseBall/RB_Newto
        n.html




        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
        wrote:
        > For the record, Bolger's theory on water flow in sharpies is
        contained
        > in the first two paragraphs of his writeup (not the first two
        > paragraphs of the chapter) of Presto Cruiser in Boats With An Open
        > Mind.
        >
        > No mention of peas.
        >
        > Peter
      • pvanderwaart
        ... 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 not
        Message 3 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > This is wonderful material. Thank you 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.

          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 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
          or useful.

          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
          it backwards.

          Peter
        • graeme19121984
          Pythagoreans were flummoxed by the irrational number. Though it was consistent, with mathematically expressed theory and remains so, it was suppressed for
          Message 4 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Pythagoreans 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.

            Graeme
            verytasty boxed wine veritas? ;)

            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
            wrote:

            > I'm not sure that Bolger's "theory" actually rises to the level of
            a
            > scientific "theory." That might require refinement.
          • Bruce Hallman
            ... 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 are
            Message 5 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > Bolger's visionary theory needs 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 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.]
            • James Greene
              ... 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, you
              Message 6 of 22 , Oct 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                >> 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 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
                be wrong???

                :)

                James Greene
              • graeme19121984
                ... 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 first
                Message 7 of 22 , Oct 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > WHY don't one of you just fax him and ask him about it? What could
                  > possibly be simpler?


                  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 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.

                  And:

                  19( ) - ( ) me, and

                  1927 - ( ) PCB, and

                  1908 - 1978 C Raymond Hunt, about whom according to C Raymond Hunt
                  Associates biography and history webpages

                  http://www.huntdesigns.com/about_ray_hunt.htm

                  "...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.

                  Graeme



                  --- In bolger@yahoogroups.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
                  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
                  > be wrong???
                  >
                  > :)
                  >
                  > James Greene
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.