Building Evelyn: Marking the frame heads at the sheer, EP11
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 мар 2021
- We’re about ready to start Evelyn's second layer of planking, but first Lou Sauzedde and Ken Boyle need to find the sheer on the outside of the strip planking. To do that, we need to mark the frame heads at the bevel of the deck beams. That’s a lot more complicated to describe than show.
In this video, we demonstrate how to use a pattern of a deck beam to mark the bevel on the frame heads and then transfer that bevel to the outside of the top strip plank or sheer plank. With this mark, we can then line off the hull and determine the widths and shapes of the second layer of carvel planking.
We could have picked the bevels up off of Evelyn’s body plan, but that would have taken hours of lofting. Plus, if any of the frames weren’t in exact alignment, the bevels would not be exact. Our goal is minimum effort for maximum accuracy.
Support Evelyn at: / bristolshipwrights
Learn more about Evelyn and woodworkings at: www.bristolshipwrights.com
Follow us on Instagram: / bristolshipwrights
Visit our Facebook page: / bristolshipwrights
Kernels of wisdom, developed over decades perfected with repetitive refinement! Thku very much! Goodonyas!
The most informative boat builder on RUclips!
The only one you need
I did a woodworking project years back and I bought a metric rule for my table saw, ordered a metric tape measure too. Made a precision job so much easier.
Louis and Ken are true Masters of their Craft!
I’m glad to see the progress on Evelyn. We demand more videos Lou! Keep them coming!
Nice to see the progress Lou and Ken!
Another great video, Lou! Yes, I've been using the metric system since 1974 and have nightmares of using the imperial system as a child. It's just so much easier all round.
Lou as a metric user I’m glad to see you recognising the benefits of using that system. Especially when it comes to not having to deal with multiple fractions! Ironically I built a boat from plans from an American designer using imperial dimensions and on occasion converted them to metric just to make further calculations simpler. I’m pretty comfortable with both systems since the change over happened when I was a kid in Australia. But there’s a good reason why the rest of the world went metric, and it’s pretty obvious when you use both.
the rest of the world went metric at the point of Napoleon's bayonets not because the system is "better" in any way. american imperial has "engineering" measures where inches are divided in to 10ths for easier divisions and machining but in point of fact "easier" is strictly a mater of circumstance some times base 12 is easier to divide than base 10 because Pi becomes a multiple of 3 and fractions work better for intuiting proportions etc etc the point being that america pioneered "standardization' and so never had the issues that led Napoleon to scrap the European imperial system for his war procurement programs , also it is a total fabrication that the US did not "adopt" metric the fact is that the US federal government does not have the power to adopt ANY system of measure the only mandate the government has is to maintain "standards" and as of the Carter administration all US measures are "standardized" on metric equivalents. the government simply lacks the power to force (key word here being "force") people to CALL those standard measures anything in particular due to the first amendment.
@@kevint1910 exactly right. We learned to use both in the late 70s early 80s in primary school. But on the job, imperial was and is the "standard", so it is the common system used for building materials and blueprints. At this point, switching over would cost everyone in the trades, all the way up through the government, cumulativly over a trillion dollars to make a full chamge over to metric. It is fiscally prohibitive. Even just basing repair parts, on already built items, on metric when everything was built based on imperial would be difficult to match up parts. We would have to use both systems for decades for replacement parts for older stuff and metric for new items and their replacement and repair parts. Stores would have to more or less double their stock, again cost prohibitive.
@@kevint1910 most countries went metric long after Napoleon was dust. Like mine. I doubt he had much to say on those.
I’m as ease with both but I know which one I prefer. And I’ll wager most who are familiar with both would agree. Base 12 - it’ll never catch on. Sometimes easier? Perhaps “rarely” might have been a better choice of words. But I get it - it’s best to use the one you’re used to, and I admit I’ll often describe something as being about an inch, or about a foot. A quick and handy alternative scale. But if calculation is involved give me metric any day. Who needs to be dealing with fractions! If I need to add, divide or multiply dimensions I can just use a calculator. Simple. Try doing that with fractions.
Ironically the inch is defined by a metric measurement I believe. Have to keep you Americans on the straight and narrow somehow. : )
@@robinhodgkinson so base 12 will never catch on? really? ever look at a clock or a calendar? two of the oldest measuring systems known to man. both are base 12 and so natural and intuitive that you don't even have to think about it. the context of the measurement is what determines what base will work best. just because YOU are oblivious to the utility does not mean others are and as i said fractions work best for design proportions the "golden ratio" being what it is.
try doing a lighting layout some time or a fire sprinkler layout , you will find that base 10 is the least helpful base to be working in exactly because you will keep running in to Pi which you do not have to deal with in base 12.
PS. THIS>>>> Have to keep you Americans on the straight and narrow somehow. : ) is exactly what pisses me off about you ignorant self superior euro trash slaves. the metric system was redundant to american standard measures the moment that it was implemented in the 1800s and the ONLY reason that we added it to our standards was for purposes of export and import.....straight and narrow my hairy azz. you can take that sentiment and fold it till it is all corners and shove it up your wazoo. (sry i tried to be polite about this but NO you had to go there didn't you?)
@@kevint1910 It's the promise of this sort of response that leads those in the metric world to needle those in the 'imperial' world. :) Good on you for telling your inner filter to stick it and not disappointing anyone.
Resisting the urge to needle further...
There's nothing wrong with customary or other units in certain applications. I like measuring human height in feet and inches. Flight levels work - they provide appropriate separation without confusion (mostly). I like beer by the pint. Hearing Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards in Super Bowl XXXVIII meant more than when a local newsreader read a conversion to meters! I like these units because they allow meaningful comparison and in use the numbers are not unnecessarily large, yet provide appropriate precision - especially the pint. ;) The important thing is the standard for what's measured is consistent and meaningful. It's more convenient if it doesn't later require conversion to mix with other numbers.
The metric system doesn't seek nor care about creating easily used numbers. It's value is that there is a single unit standard of measure, and the only operation required to unify different units used by one industry and another is a movement of a decimal point and change of prefix. In this regard, it has a benefit of simplicity.
There's nothing wrong with fractions. The decimal system doesn't preclude their use in any way! We still do division!
I'm all ears on the golden ratio. √5...? Not sure how you're advantaged using fractions. 1 : 1 79/128 gets you pretty close?
Pi.... I'm not going there!
I would be cautious about describing hours and months as measures. The units are meaningful, but in use for calculation they're endured. The stable unit is the second - hours change.
In relation to your final paragraph, may I suggest you get a hold of some Johansson blocks. Wring together as many as you feel comfortable and when you slide them in consider the Swede who took 50.8nm off every good ol' U.S. inch!
The fastest 12 minutes of my week. Great job on another vid!
Thanks Lou, another great video.
great to see lou over here !!!
Precision is his middle name! wonderful job, she's a beauty already.
Been followed Tips From A Shipwright for over two years. Had no idea you had this channel!! Very excited!!
Truly great content
The Boyz Are Back In Town!!!!
Great shot at 4:35!
"We're going to use the metric system because it's much easier to divide."
Finally, an American who gets it! Here's hoping for a metric future.
They tried to swap over in the late 70s early 80s and it just didn't take. They still teach both in primary school, but industry and the highway system would cost too much to switch over at this point.
American’s can deal with both!
@@thomasarussellsr Do what the Brits do and use miles etc for roads, and everything else can be metric, including temperature.
@@richmodelmaker Exactly why Lockheed Martin cost NASA some many millions by crashing something destined for Mars directly into Mars. "Oh, we thought you were using different units."
None of this information will ever possibly be used by me. But it sure is cool to watch.
How the hell are there only 18.2K subscribers?!
Thanks Ben. I ask myself that question all the time. But then I read the comments. From people like you, I know it's about quality not quantity. (Yep, we sure would like more subscribers.)
When I was a welder fitter, I rather use a metric tape than a imperial standard tape, its easier and its more accurate.. Once you get use to the metric system, you will find it easier and more accurate. I don't know why we still use that system in America but we do.
Because the cost outweighs the advantages mainly.
i wish we’d go all metric. i’ve been having to buy two sets of everything my entire adult life, and imperial is stupid to say the least.
Amazing series, really enjoying it. Can anyone explain why Lou is marking the frame head angle with block that is clamped to it? And not using the underside of the deck camber template?
Thanks
looking good men
Did you have a RUclips sailing channel ?
@@johnshoureas1629 no i did not not me
I couldn't tell, in the beginning, whether he was marking or mocking the frame heads! LOL!
Either is cool! There's a lot of them.
is it not needed that there is some form stability from the frames?
i dont know, hence I am asking
Where did you find the UHMW billet?
Thanks Lou! Will you have to cut the sheer plank with a progressive bevel, or will it just be 90 degrees?
Planed to the bevel. We can get it right by marking every frame. We could have pickled it up off the body plan and the molds but the accuracy would suffer. (Yep, it's over the top.)
Given that the deck template realizes a parabolic arc and that the curvature differs as a function of displacement from centerline...
I found it odd that there was no mention of "centering the template" for each pair of frames (stations).
I would also like to understand the initial mark of the sheer was found. That is, the displacement along the frame to indicate sheer line, not the sheer angle. The sheer line was produced without an explanation of how it was achieved. Lou aligns the small block to the angle of the template AND to the sheer line. How was the sheer line formulated?
I came to the comments for an answer and only found more questions
@@veyr0n If the template was a circular arc, then no centering of the template would be needed.
I agree and commented also--before I saw your comment
@@WhatAboutTheBee It isn't a circle--- but a parabolic curve--- the angle across the frame heads is different relative to the distance from the centerline of the hull. To have the frame head angles the same each side the template has to be centered on the longitudinal CL of the hull.
I believe Lou said the sheer line marks were on the molds (presumably taken from the lofting)
Since you're camber pattern was a parabolic curve ,shouldn't you have had some sort of centerline reference to make sure the angles ended up equal on both sides of the boat?
since the pattern is not a constant radius--don't you have to reference it to the centerline of the hull at each mold?
Exactly!!
@@WhatAboutTheBee seems to me Even if the template was a circle since only part of the circle is used the Center of the template has to be centered on the hull
@@ramjamjungle8339 Nay sir. If it is a section of a circle, then rotating the template while simultaneously maintaining contact with the two sheer points, results in precisely the same arc across the deck. It is still the same circle, at the same radius, in contact with the same two points!
@@WhatAboutTheBee Umm Oh yea! Thanks.
So if you make the template longer than the width of the boat, making sure an equal length of the template hangs off each side as it's marked, the middle of the template would always be in the middle of the boat? I wish I were clever enough to think o that.
It looks like you're building the biggest possible boat that can be built in that space. haha.
1 1/2" on either side when it rolls out the door. (I hope.)
Hands up all those who now have a duplicate Evelyn at this stage?!
Wouldn't it be cool to see a whole mooring field full of wooden boats again? The molds for Evelyn may be available soon. You're on the top of the list.
@@BristolShipwrights Wow dont know how I missed this! Thats would be a phenomenal deal. Thank you so much.
I didn’t get a notification this time??? You must not have apologized to RUclips for having white privilege
...trying to make a professional effort....