> This is wonderful material. Thank you for the reference, I had only

I 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

> elsewhere.

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- 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.

> 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.]>> Bolger's visionary theory needs refinement

Blah 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

be wrong???

:)

James Greene> WHY don't one of you just fax him and ask him about it? What could

Well, 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.

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