Re: Seas of Peas ... forever (?)

> 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

--- Inbolger@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

>> 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

> 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.]

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? ;)

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

> I'm not sure that Bolger's "theory" actually rises to the level of

> scientific "theory." That might require refinement.

> 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

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
orhttp://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.htmlor
http://tinyurl.com/cwmvd

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

(7)http://www.ikarus342000.com/Avorart.htmor
http://tinyurl.com/8xq93
(8)http://aerodyn.org/Drag/drag.htmlorhttp://tinyurl.com/cf4no

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

--- Inbolger@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

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

Stefan,

no worries. "Their" each telling what "they" "saw" is "their" "first
hand" experience account. They are'nt communicating, "secondhand",
another's "first hand" experience, but their own. It becomes
secondhand when we communicate about the experience we understand
them to have communicated about to us. Perhaps an alternative, tough
to impossible, existential interpretation of "first hand" is: "if I
can't see (experience) it, it doesn't exist"?

Where does PCB mention that he has SO[U]P with his theory?

Well, though it's publicly attributed to him, where does he not?
Make the case, go to it, advocate.

Graeme
favours nice testing before accepting ;)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@o...>
wrote:

> Dear Graeme,
>
> don't get me wrong. I believe Jim Michalak when he writes that he

saw

> the SO[U]P recipe (about how to cook a wake-less hull) from Bolger.
>
> However, the request was of a first hand account, i.e.

not "somebody

> else saw it", but what is looked for is a letter, article etc. of
> Bolger, where he writes himself about the SO[U]P.
>
> --- "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...> wrote:
> > They actually saw it. They did not just hear from someone else

who

> > saw it. And what they saw contained both "seas of peas" imagery

and

> > flow theory.
>
> See, "they" saw it.
> OK, Bolger writes about his "Flow Theory". But where does he

mention

> that with his "Flow Theory" he means the SO[U]P?
>
> Stefan
> playing the nice devil's advocate ;)

Dear Graeme,

don't get me wrong. I believe Jim Michalak when he writes that he saw
the SO[U]P recipe (about how to cook a wake-less hull) from Bolger.

However, the request was of a first hand account, i.e. not "somebody
else saw it", but what is looked for is a letter, article etc. of
Bolger, where he writes himself about the SO[U]P.

--- "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...> wrote:

> They actually saw it. They did not just hear from someone else who
> saw it. And what they saw contained both "seas of peas" imagery and
> flow theory.

See, "they" saw it.
OK, Bolger writes about his "Flow Theory". But where does he mention
that with his "Flow Theory" he means the SO[U]P?

Stefan
playing the nice devil's advocate ;)

Contrarily, a new square book, "the works", is coming:

"What's worse for the likes of "Scruffie" and his shadow cabinet of
dockside advisors, is the news that eventually a book will see the
light of day solely *devoted* to just our output of 'squarish' and
related craft discussing all 110+ designs of the type in our archive,
tracking through the last 50 years what we've learnt and found useful
to pass on to our clients.

And Phil, after 662 designs and now in his 51st year still deep in his
prime - and for a while now Susanne his wife, are working on
more 'outrages' to build and discuss in broard daylight - quick hide
the children and the faint of heart! Currently, we are amusing
ourselves and our clients with 'box' related craft up to 100 'home
buildable' feet, with 'the party' not to end any time soon we think.

~ *The point is to consider all options and to soberly arrive at a
decision in favour of one or the other alternative in terms of hull
shape, assembly time, affordability, capability, utility, and
repairability.* And boats with sharp edges will in a lot but surely
nowhere near all cases, be a very reasonable choice, in some cases
untouchably superior to any other shapes - period. But you have to
study the options and the endless implications of what may be possible
and desirable. (*italicise*)" Phil Bolger AABB #38 June 2002 p84.

Yippeee, the old and more "'outrages'" on the way!

PCB re Gloucester Yawl: "....and I was tickled at the thought of the
outrage the design would cause and how it would be silenced when she
was tried." (Small Boats p51). The theory is still active.

Graeme

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@p...> wrote:
> I have caught hints that changes in his thinking is one of the
reasons
> he appears to resist republication of his out of print books. He
would
> like to rewrite. Just an opinion from far away, no outright
statements
> to support it.
>
> HJ

> And from what do you conclude that with "my flow theory" he means

the

> same like the "sea of peas"?

.

I'm no historian, nor lawer, but understand that two solid
independent attesting corroborations establish a fact. In this case
the link between "seas of peas" and " my flow theory" (Bolger' Flow
Theory).
1) "Phil's theory starts with the idea that the boat is crashing
through a sea of frozen peas... ....What is really interesting
about Bolger's theory is that he ties together the shapes of the
different hull panels, the sides, bottom and bilge panels. By his
idea, those panels should all have the save curvature, if possible,
for the best flow lines. The same curvatures would mean the panels
have the same pressures and the eddying would be minimized." etc.-
Michalak April2000.
and
2) "...,but have always thought PCB's later writing that talked
about getting the bottom rocker to match the curve of the side were
in accordance with what I way in that essay. ......
.... PCB said according his theory that could produce some while
steering, especially while running, whcih indeed the boat did."
etc. -Gary post#46078. "Bolger wrote an article to explain his
theory of how water molecules move around a boat in motion. To make
it easier for the reader to visualize, he invited them to think of
the molecules as a seas of peas, and then proceeded to explain how
the shape of the hull would or would not induce the peas to form
eddies or create drag." etc.- Gary #45179
They actually saw it. They did not just hear from someone else who
saw it. And what they saw contained both "seas of peas" imagery and
flow theory.
.
Also,
the primary source, PCB, appears in many instances to be working
consistently within a theoretical framework. This work encompasses
the period of his unpublished "seas of peas" manuscript spanning
from at least the explicit 1973 Gloucester Yawl flow theory claim
to at least mid-2002. Here's an extract of a PCB letter to the
editor of Australian Amateur Boatbuilder #38 June2002:
"Dear Sir
We're glad that "Scruffie" finally got it all off his square chest.
He must have felt like being bent over a hard-chine once too many
when he apparently was affronted by yet another box somewhere...(sic)
Indeed, proposing a 'boxboat' as a cure-all in a boat design would
be as intemperate as calling all of them unseaworthy and unsafe. On
the other hand, it is a good thing that Scruffie's 'mariners'
and 'designers' did not have much say.
...( Here follows a listing with 8 brief commentaries of: Egyptians
2420BC, coastal 1800's British barges, Chinese Arab trade, Roman-
Germanic riverine 50AD examined by PCB recently in Cologne, Dutch
along shore, Loose Moose 2, Micro, WWll LSTs)...
There are some things to observe though when it comes to designing
flat-bottom craft - with and without flare:
~ As the Egyptians knew about 4500 years ago - they actually went a
bit far on that one it seems - varying levels of rockers have to be
designed into the craft to match a given use profile. Typically, all
just rules of thumb here, you'd put less in very light sailing and
fast powered ones, and a bit to a lot more in various types of
displacement speed power and sailing mono and multihulls.
~ And on a case by case basis there should be serious consideration
given to the interaction of chine-curves in profile and plan-view;
this can make the difference between a poorly steering craft and one
that will be as good in (sic) anything in nasty conditions.
We've experimented a bit at our own expense, and willing clients
have moved the understanding of possibilities further along with
countless craft they built of various sizes, propulsion, speed, and
featuring an ever growing range of bow shapes. For instance under
construction by amateurs - if you can call some of them that? are
more and more outgrowths of 'box-boats' - incidently not our name
for them.
For instance and by no means exhaustive (with brief commentaries
here follows a list of 9: LM2, Tahiti, Walrus, Topaz, Wyoming
upgrade, Double Eagle, WDJ, Champlain, Antispray 48)...." Phil
Bolger ( pp 83&4)

Discrete design by "rules of thumb" is empirical; case by case
consideration of interactions implies a theoretical continuum.
Egyptians to Antispray 48 : observation to theory.
If PCB had heard of, and bothered to blast "Scruffie" by 2002 he
has certainly heard of SOP, yet no enlightening heat. The theory is
still active. And a rose by any other name....
Graeme

I have caught hints that changes in his thinking is one of the reasons
he appears to resist republication of his out of print books. He would
like to rewrite. Just an opinion from far away, no outright statements
to support it.

HJ

pvanderwaart wrote:

>>The "My flow theory" reference in the Gloucester Yawl piece is a
>>clear "first hand" record. This ain't hearsay or circumstancial.
>>
>>
>
>Keep in mind that PCB has probably learned a thing or two since 1960,
>and changed his mind on a lot as well. In fact, he has said so, now
>and then. How could he not, given his inquiring mind and habit of
>indulging in experiments?
>
>He HAS given 5 or 10 sentence summaries of his flow theories,
>especially to explain that he likes to give a sharpie a high and wide
>bow (as compared to other designers) to encourage flow at the chines
>to be from the bottom out to the sides. He believes flow the other way
>to be very bad. This is not exactly the same as his descriptions of
>his objective in shaping box keels: to eliminate as best can all flow
>across the chines. (He notes that perfection is out of reach.)
>
>I'm not quite sure if the sea-of-peas is to be taken as some
>fundemental intuition, or as a pedagogical device for explantions to
>is adoring public.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
>- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
>- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
>- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

> > The "My flow theory" reference in the Gloucester Yawl piece is a
> > clear "first hand" record. This ain't hearsay or circumstancial.
>
> Keep in mind that PCB has probably learned a thing or two since

1960,

> and changed his mind on a lot as well. In fact, he has said so, now
> and then. How could he not, given his inquiring mind and habit of
> indulging in experiments.

Peter,

all theories grow and change. Sometimes they are found to be fatally
flawed and are discarded for a bettr one. Until that happens they
remain the same theory.

> He HAS given 5 or 10 sentence summaries of his flow theories,

Where else other than the Gloucester Yawl piece does PCB refer
to his "theory"? He may prefer the theory (insight) of Hunt to that
of Munroe; but mostly in any piece observes phenomena, leaving the
reader to draw their own conclusions, 1) about the theoretical
framework, 2) about what the author thinks is happening, and, 3)why
were these phenomena listed.

> especially to explain that he likes to give a sharpie a high and

wide

> bow (as compared to other designers) to encourage flow at the

chines

> to be from the bottom out to the sides. He believes flow the other

way

> to be very bad. This is not exactly the same as his descriptions of
> his objective in shaping box keels: to eliminate as best can all

flow

> across the chines. (He notes that perfection is out of reach.)
>
>
>
> I'm not quite sure if the sea-of-peas is to be taken as some
> fundemental intuition, or as a pedagogical device for explantions

> is adoring public.

I think SOP is a pedagogical device, and that what is often meant by
SOP, chine curvature effects, is a major emphasis of PCB's bigger
theory, BFT.

I like your "SOUP"

Graeme

Besides which, I favor changing the name of the theory to be Sea of
Underwater Peas. SOUP!

> The "My flow theory" reference in the Gloucester Yawl piece is a
> clear "first hand" record. This ain't hearsay or circumstancial.

Keep in mind that PCB has probably learned a thing or two since 1960,
and changed his mind on a lot as well. In fact, he has said so, now
and then. How could he not, given his inquiring mind and habit of
indulging in experiments?

He HAS given 5 or 10 sentence summaries of his flow theories,
especially to explain that he likes to give a sharpie a high and wide
bow (as compared to other designers) to encourage flow at the chines
to be from the bottom out to the sides. He believes flow the other way
to be very bad. This is not exactly the same as his descriptions of
his objective in shaping box keels: to eliminate as best can all flow
across the chines. (He notes that perfection is out of reach.)

I'm not quite sure if the sea-of-peas is to be taken as some
fundemental intuition, or as a pedagogical device for explantions to
is adoring public.

Peter

--- "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...> wrote:

> The "My flow theory" reference in the Gloucester Yawl piece is a
> clear "first hand" record.

And from what do you conclude that with "my flow theory" he means the
same like the "sea of peas"?

Stefan

Thankyou Stefan,

the question was whether or not Mr Bolger had ever claimed the
theory, that is had he published it, or were there only second or
third hand accounts of him doing so. Secondary sources, Jim
Michalak, and Gary Blankenship in his posts #46078 and #45179, both
attest to the BFT and thought experiment visualisation *Seas of
Peas* aspects of Mr Bolger's theory, but I am not aware of Mr Bolger
publishing or recording anywhere even a hint of *Seas of Peas*
imagery.

I, however, like Jim Michalak, consider that the other and much more
important aspect of the theory, that is, performance - related to
drag - related to flow - related to hull form, BFT, is mentioned
rife throughout Mr Bolger's writing and design. "First hand".

Jim Michalak's account is secondary, and therefore as you write "is
not sufficient for those who want to hear/see it "first hand"", but
aknowledgement should go to him for spotting BFT in Mr Bolger's
books over twenty years ago. In his 1Sep04 newsletter JM writes:

"I used to write letters back and forth with Phil Bolger twenty
years ago, before the internet and before either of us was married.
When you get married your patterns of communicating with your
buddies changes and eventually I guess we both got too busy to
write. But once he sent me an article about hull shaping that he was
trying to get published. In his books he would mention his "theory"
predicting this and that but never said any details about the
theory. I think his article was never published so I am going to try
to repeat it as I remember it. So here we present...."

That's twenty years before 2004 ie. 1984 ( though this article
follows an earlier one of JM's in 2000
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0401/index.htm#HULL
%20SHAPING orhttp://tinyurl.com/9s7fr). As for Mr Bolger's books,
eleven years prior to that *Small Boats* was first published in
1973. I assume it contains much that Mr Bolger had already published
much earlier, like his other books mostly do. My quick guess would
be that Archaeopteryx was designed and WRITTEN about in the early
60's, that likewise for Otter in the mid-60's (based on a design
that had already been sailing for over fifteen years), and the
crucial Gloucester Yawl in the late 60's.

The "My flow theory" reference in the Gloucester Yawl piece is a
clear "first hand" record. This ain't hearsay or circumstancial.
Can't get any closer. Mr Bolger, perhaps it's a lapse, personally
stakes a bold claim. This claim and all the other mentions and
references in his books and designs are the primary sources those
people seek.

Graeme

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@o...>
wrote:

> Dear Graeme,
> what do you consider as "Bolger Claim Found"?
> See my post #45165.
>Jim Michalak's account is not sufficient for those who want to

hear/see it "first hand".

> Stefan

> --- "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...> wrote:
> ...
> Now, I think there is sufficient evidence including that of Jim

Michalak's account

>

(http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2004/0901/index.htm#Hul
l %20Shaping ... )

> Dear Graeme,
> what do you consider as "Bolger Claim Found"?
> See my post #45165.
>Jim Michalak's account is not sufficient for those who want to

hear/see it "first hand".

> Stefan

> --- "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...> wrote:
> ...
> Now, I think there is sufficient evidence including that of Jim

Michalak's account

>

(http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2004/0901/index.htm#Hul
l %20Shaping ... )

Dear Graeme,

what do you consider as "Bolger Claim Found"?

See my post #45165.

Jim Michalak's account is not sufficient for those who want to
hear/see it "first hand".

Stefan

--- "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...> wrote:
...

> Now, I think there is sufficient evidence including that
> of Jim Michalak's account

(http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2004/0901/index.htm#Hull

> %20Shaping ... )

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:

> A little while ago there was yet again some discussion here from
> message #46045 to #46078 wherein the question was again raised as to
> whether or not Mr Bolger had ever claimed SOP. Now, I think there is
> sufficient evidence including that of Jim Michalak's account

I read Michalak's account and it seems to fit with my experience in
the AS-29. With a guest helmsperson aboard, or with sails balanced for
self steering, I've had a few opportunities to watch the waterline as
the boat slid through the water. The flow of water along the waterline
is very smooth, no vorteces. As wind speed picks up and the boat
heels, more chine is exposed on the windward side, but still little if
anything in the way of vorteces. (Haven't gotten a look at the lee
side yet.) Once in a while, small bubbles form right along the
waterline that enable the eye to follow the flow. It's as smooth as I
could ever imagine. (The bubbles are about the size of peas - any
coincidence?)

One indication of the effeciency of the design is in watching the wake
- there isn't one. The boat leaves a "slick" rather than a wake. She
leaves the water smoother than when she found it.

Michalak mentions that the overhang at the bow helps ease the steering
force needed to swing the boat around. I don't know if that's the
reason, but this boat spins around her bilgeboards like she's on an
axle. She tracks nicely with the rudder amidships, but push the tiller
over and she'll tack fast enough to make you dizzy.

Well found, Graeme!

I suspect we'll never see this stuff written up clearly, because it seems to be derived from intuition, observation, thought experiments and the fact that it works in practice - not easy things to put into words.

I bet a good fluid dynamicist could model these effects mathematically, but while this would be publishable in erudite journals, only a mathematician could hope to gain a feel for what is actually happening there.

PCB's tantalising snippets have had the effect of provoking a good deal of thought among boat designers and builders, but when considered together may not have all the components necessary to add up to a complete theory that can be tested.

I'm just happy that he has the courage to put his ideas into practice so effectively.

Bill

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A little while ago there was yet again some discussion here from
message #46045 to #46078 wherein the question was again raised as to
whether or not Mr Bolger had ever claimed SOP. Now, I think there is
sufficient evidence including that of Jim Michalak's account
(
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2004/0901/index.htm#Hull
%20Shaping2 orhttp://tinyurl.com/bnks4) and Gary's account at
message #46078 to safely conclude that Mr Bolger indeed had
conceived, even written (and here we must remember Bolger's
reputation for being a very careful author. Even his correspondence
warrants study!), of a thought experiment: Seas of Peas. This to
help envisage the movement of a boat hull through water.

The idea of representing water molecules as peas may have been
entirely original; or possibly may be an adaptation of a similar
model, for example, the explanation of behaviour of airflow around a
wing or sail is often seen depicted as moving 'particles'; also gas
molecules were to be "visualised as a collection of perfectly hard
spheres", when explaining the Ideal Gas Law
http://tinyurl.com/aallolong ago when I went to high school.

Now, if that is SOP, this visualisation exercise, then it is one
thing and helpful; but it has always seemed to me to be inextricably
linked, sometimes confusingly so, to ANOTHER fundamental Bolger
concept or theory of design for boats in general and sharpie hull
lines particularly. Frustratingly, Mr Bolger makes fleeting
references and gingerly alludes to this theory in many of his
writings without actually coming out and stating it fully and
clearly. Here a bit, there a bit: a riddle, a tease. The elephant is
in the room, yet mostly ignored.

My favourite most obvious bit is about the lessened chine eddies of
(Minimum) Proa in BWAOM, Chapter 24, p118, then there is the bit
about a long series of experiments (testing what other hypothesis?)
when explaining the seemingly excessive rocker in the bottom of
Otter in SB, Chapter 22, p119. There are again, sharpie hull form
plus exaggerated rocker plus chine eddies, all mentioned regarding
Archaeopteryx in SB, Chapter 23, pp128+130; then there is the
recently posted article on AS19; and on, and on. From more recent,
to way back times.

Why is Mr Bolger so reticent, if that is the correct
characterisation? Why not elaborate the flow theory? Well, I recall
reading articles linked or posted here, written by Mr Bolger some
time ago, in which he lamented that he was not allowed to call
himself a naval architect. People had said he had not the proper
professional qualifications. He vigorously railed against this
argument maintaining something along the lines that if someone loved
doing something, did a lot of it, and did it well, indeed
brilliantly, then that ought be sufficient "qualification". Perhaps
attack from authorities and "professionals" jealously guarding their
bailiwick prompts Mr Bolger's apparent discretion (his valour will
be remembered; will theirs?).

BFT
Now and again Mr Bolger mentions Ralph Munroe and Ray Hunt, but
while regarding the Gloucester Yawl in Small Boats, Chapter 10, p50,
Mr Bolger writes at the page top:

"It's an old observation that sharpies suffer from being wide for
their length, and from having flaring sides. MY FLOW THEORY*
accounts for this, but I've long thought that a sponson sharpie
would produce the benefits of a flaring side without the drawbacks,
or most of them." ( * no italics thus my capitals)

Gotcha. There is the proclamation: " My flow theory", ie. His flow
theory, ie. Bolger flow theory, ie. BFT.

And it goes way back. Before the dinosaurs, way before the evolution
of Archaeopteryx. How far? I don't know. And it will stretch into
the future too, and via the Bolgerverse have an effect in many
places. I hope one day Mr Bolger tells. I hope he simply reveals
all, in published writing, and not only in design. 'Cause I want to
know.

When I figure out how, I have an idea to set up a database here of
all the many Bolger references to SOP and BFT. They are too many and
too deliberately low profile to recollect at will. If pulled
together comprehensively in one easily accessible place a wider and
better understanding of one Bolger theory (or two) may eventuate.
Maybe someone else would like to set this up?

forgive me this lengthy rave
Graeme who would love to have over Bolger For Tea