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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.