ENGLISH LIVERPOOL SHIP BUILDER'S HALF-BLOCK MODELROB HALL ANTIQUESA Victorian ship builder's half block model. Well…in a tire wall the tires are staggered like bricks to create a stable knitted structure. In the case of using a tire, squeeze the rubber to your chest effectively crumpling it up and ram it into the space.
If you’d prefer not to beat a poor defenseless tire into submission, but rather the more gentle approach of substituting a box, then proceed to use a box with dimensions wide, deep and high enough to approximate the tires on either side of it. After filling with a small amount of rocks and cement,  ‘porcupine’ some screws through the box into the adjoining tires. After filling box with cement, you’ll want to check both the horizontal and vertical level to the adjoining tires.
Mist had no preferences herself but enjoys the theatrics of watching a tire being squished and maimed into a space half it’s size. Waste ManagementWP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better. I stumbled upon the practicum by Gene Bodnar Gene's Eagle Practicum while doing a late night browse on MSB and just couldnt stop reading. If you’ve chosen to fill the entire box with cement at once, you may need to support the box for the duration of curing. My most recent paper, “The Breakup Of Titanic – A Re-Examination of Survivor Accounts”, was presented at the First International Marine Forensics Symposium on April 4.Working with Roy Mengot (with whom I co-authored one paper), I've been gathering evidence to support a reconstruction of the breakup of the “Titanic” that differs somewhat from the one you may have seen in movies or in other publications. Half hull model ships were constructed by shipwrights as a means of planning a ship's design and sheer and ensuring that the ship would be symmetrical. In one instance I found an error in one of the buttock lines, but even that didn't explain it all. The most important stages in our reconstruction are illustrated here:In our reconstruction, the failure began in the ship's bottom structure, when the ship was at an angle of about 17 degrees. Other previous employers include Gibbs & Cox, Inc., a naval architecture and marine engineering firm.
The half hulls were mounted on a board and were exact scale replicas of the actual ship's hull.
I LOVE the idea of making notes on the plans from the thesis- I believe I'll "borrow" it . Unknowingly, before I had a chance to check it for any files I wanted to keep my wife disposed of it That folder was one of the few that didn't make it to my external drive.


My solution was to follow the waterlines as much as possible (they seemed to be more accurate) and sometimes split the difference between the two points when that seemed like it would give me the more fair transition from the neighboring frames.The issue is most likely related to human errors in making the drawings and limitations in accuracy in doing so.
He holds a Bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from The Cooper Union, a Master's in mechanical engineering from Columbia University, and a Master's in science education from New York University. Just a word on the waterlines- I had asked the same question, but have found after lofting about half the frames that the waterlines you have are sufficient if you use the edge of the rail as a point. The only way to get completely error free plans would be to work from CAD drawings that have been fixed to make everything agree. At that point, the two halves of the ship were held together by the uppermost strength decks, and by the double – thickness side shell plating.
The deckhouse is shown opening up at the aft expansion joint – but the split in the deckhouse was an effect, not a cause, of the hull break.As the bow continued to flood, and as water poured into the engine room (which would have been opened to the sea when the bottom gave way), the bow section pulled down on the forward end of the stern section. The angle between the two pieces of the hull decreased – as if the ship were a giant paper clip that was first bent, then straightened out. In addition, I read the forums on MSB (sorry to hear the fate of your ship, Winston!) and will pull from them.In writing this blog, I will share my perspective on the practicum and how I tackled areas that I found tricky.
At some point in this process, the two sections broke apart completely.The breakup was not symmetrical.
The “Big Piece” (a large piece of the ship's side, recovered in 1998) came from the starboard side – it had no counterpart on the port side. The after part of the ship is known to have listed to port fairly suddenly – so the starboard side may have failed first, leaving the flooded bow section to pull down on the port side of the stern section until the two parts separated completely. This left the stern section to float on its own, eventually standing nearly vertical in the water, then finally disappearing below the waves.That's our reconstruction. Now, let's look at how it was developed, and why we believe that it's closer to what actually happened than any other model proposed to date.These ideas began to take shape when I first saw the photos of what were then called the “Missing Pieces”. Looking at the way the keel bent at the ends of those pieces, I was sure that it was shaped by compression. Also, the remaining edges looked too clean to have been formed by multiple twists and bends – those pieces looked like they failed first, not last.The “Big Piece” seemed to be the other important piece of the puzzle. After years of puzzlement, I realized that the “Big Piece” must have formed part of the temporary hinge about which the stern section bent, first downward, then upward.
Such a sequence of loads and ship motions could have created the piece as we see it today (Any attempt to say how each edge broke would be pure speculation – but if the ship broke from the top down, we would be able to explain how only one of the edges formed. My first paper on the “Titanic”, published in 2003, gave me some insights into the behavior of the riveted joints.


I realized that because of the way the hull was riveted together, the bottom was not as strong as most investigators believed. And because of the way the uppermost strakes (strips) of plating were constructed, they had much more strength than most investigators have given them credit for.The high stresses around the deckhouse expansion joints – previously believed, even by the Marine Forensics Committee, to have been the starting point for the breakup – turned out to be a “red herring”. The deckhouse was made of lightweight plating, and carefully constructed so as NOT to share in the structural loads on the ship. I saw this on another build and thought it an excellent idea.On the inboard profile, I made notations about the ships construction and woods used. We created a computer model of a portion of the bottom structure, and identified potential weak spots.
We compared our reconstruction with survivor testimony and the condition of the wreck.We had help from other members of the Marine Forensics Committee (formerly the Marine Forensics Panel) – especially from its chairman, Bill Garzke. As I mentioned earlier, this is the same body that was once a leading advocate of the theory that the break started in the upper portion of the hull – but they gave us their full support.We first presented our work informally at a session of the 2007 SNAME Annual Meeting.
We developed it into a formal paper, which was presented at a local section meeting in New York in 2009.
It was published in 2010 as “The Breakup Of Titanic – A Progress Report From The Marine Forensics Panel (SD – 7)” in SNAME's journal, “Marine Technology”. I was expecting all kinds of objections to be raised during our presentations – we did not get even one.
It may be a bit of a stretch to call this a paradigm shift, but it does have many of the characteristics of one – and engineers, like scientists, must always be prepared to deal with new evidence that may force us to discard our previous concepts and embrace new ones.But we also hope that in the absence of such evidence, our work will be respected.
If there is to be a debate over the validity of our work, we hope that it will take place in open scientific and professional forums, and that the outcome of the debate will be determined in the best tradition of scientific inquiry.There is even more at stake in this particular case.
If our reconstruction is substantially correct, then the survivors' testimony (with a few exceptions) turns out to have been quite accurate. If there is such a middle ground, I would gladly stand on it – but at the moment, I don't see any more middle ground here than there was between, say, Kepler and Copernicus.I've had my say. What will your verdict be?The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.



Pontoon boat rental lake powell 2014
Pontoon boats destin fl events
Boat trailer laws ontario dismissal