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

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

Expand Messages
  • graeme19121984
    Pythagoreans were flummoxed by the irrational number. Though it was consistent, with mathematically expressed theory and remains so, it was suppressed for
    Message 1 of 22 , Oct 3 10:21 AM
      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 2 of 22 , Oct 3 10:53 AM
        > 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 3 of 22 , Oct 3 6:20 PM
          >> 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 4 of 22 , Oct 5 9:14 PM
            > 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.