Hi Bill.

Things are going from strength to strength.
Participation in this topic increased from five to six.

Any comments are welcome.
Too bad not all of them have content. Not everyone can find something concrete in their trunk.

But they do what they can and we need to encourage them, next time they could do better, ahahahah!
The important thing is to participate, hahahaha!

I also understand that reading very long posts can be tiring for some.

To understand you have to read.

Much ado about nothing. Four words says a lot!
Lew
Florida 😴, USA

Hi Bill.

I don't know you personally but I know your work through the forum.
I look at them often because they are a school for me, I think I've run out of "likes" for your models.

I have great respect for your way of dynamic modeling and I admire your modesty and moderation in writing.
These characteristics make you an authoritative person in this forum, a few of your words weigh much more than many others.

For these reasons the phrase "Your hard work and diligence deserves a medal in not only this but other posts you share" is the medal itself for me.
I thank you for giving me this medal yourself when you said these words.

To many they may seem like rhetorical phrases but I am convinced of what I say because I was very struck by your commendable intent to lift me and JockScott up.
Your purpose is noble and probably reflects the person.

It's like you say! I'm not discouraged at all. I was just a little worried about JockScott, I didn't want some sentences to have mortified him.

I'm actually very happy that this topic (in my opinion with very interesting contents) has gone from only two participants to five.

I think that the worst that can happen in a forum is the absence of comments or the poverty of interventions; written silence is the death of the forum.
The forum is useful for spreading the knowledge and culture of modeling.

For these reasons I also welcome critical or very critical comments with great pleasure and interest, as long as they are respectful and not offensive. So far I have not read any offensive or disrespectful comments.
Unfortunately I can't grasp the nuances and all the words, perhaps I'm missing some subtle irony and it's a shame because I really like irony and the joking tone.

Thanks again for your valuable input.

Hi Roy.

Your posts are always full of anecdotes and information.
You are one of those modelers who would like to meet in person so that they can talk to you (in reality I would mostly listen to you).
You are a gold mine of skills and knowledge.

When someone writes a post they always expect your intervention sooner or later and if this doesn't happen they are disappointed.
On the topic of the anatomy of the ESC, you not only did not disappoint expectations but you gave a significant boost. You and JOHN.

You intervene on almost everything and you are one of the souls of this forum, one of the most active and lively ones, I'm just sorry that I can't always understand everything you write.
This is my limitation, certainly not your fault.

You wrote many interesting sentences in this post.

"Further calculation of the meta center gives you an idea of how violent or sluggish is the recovery of the boat as it rolls in the water.
A sluggish return to stability is useful for firing guns and a quick return is more for a sailing boat."
In fact, even passenger ships cannot return to stability too abruptly otherwise passengers would have serious seasickness problems. In Italy they say that the ship must not be too "hard".
On my model I have no passengers and I am looking for the most intense righting thrust. Furthermore, as you rightly say, it is a sailing ship.
Even warships need to have a softer return, it's just like you say.

"Much can be done by eye it depends if you like playing with numbers!
I don't do this anymore, I adjust an existing plan."
You've done it in the past, you don't have to prove anything today. You can enrich us with your anecdotes and advice.

"Nice to see that someone cares about the fundamentals."
I agree with you.
It's not my job because I do something else, but I'm an enthusiast and nothing stops me from reading many books on these topics, getting on some sailing boats, watching videos and talking to competent people.

Alessandro.
Your hard work and diligence deserves a medal in not only this but other posts you share.

I am sure that you are not,but don’t be discouraged by any perceived negativity shown in certain quarter's.
Keep up the good work…it’s how we all learn 👍👍🎅🎅
Regards
Bill

Hi back when I first got interested my first calculation was Simpsons 1st rule for estimating underwater volume. Not dissimilar to Allessandro's method.

Then calculate centre of buoyancy.
Then centre of gravity (i.e. dispersion of weight in the hull.) This not easy as in a model, by then it is a bit late!

Followed by altering underwater volumes to be in the same vertical plane as the c of g, and the boat floats on an even keel.

Keep c of b above c of g and you have a stable boat.

Further calculation of the meta centre gives you an idea of how violent or sluggish is the recovery of the boat as it rolls in the water.

A sluggish return to stability is useful for firing guns and a quick return is more for a sailing boat.

Much can be done by eye it depends if you like playing with numbers!

I don't do this anymore, I adjust an existing plan.

There are practical ways for instance if you cut out a silouette of the underwater hull from stout card, you can suspend it by a thread and draw a line where the thread crosses the card.
Choose a different suspension point and assuming they intersect, then where the intersection is, is the centre of buoyancy.

Nice to see that someone cares about the fundamentals.
Roy

Don't worry JockScott, we didn't waste any time.

The work was not useless at all, it was not futile.
Your questions were not trivial.

They would not have been futile and banal even if the results had been poor. Instead, the results were more than satisfactory, in my opinion.

If you want to make other comments or questions (also for any details on the water test), feel free to ask me, it will be my pleasure to answer you.

You will also try it in the ocean... fantastic!
I am even more interested in the developments of this tanker scale model.

Hi Alessandro, thank you for your comments.
As we went along with the clarification of various issues from the material I had given you, I was indeed wondering how much effort and time you invested in this project and if this was not stretching your patience and endurance. But since you diligently responded to all issues as they represented themselves, to stop now would have been disrespectful and rude on my part. So, for that I thank you for your comments in responds to RN's post as I had the notion, my part was conceived as 'leading you on to a trivial and somewhat futile attempt' of very little achievement. Therefore let's let it rest, you have achieved more than I could have imagined, until I can determine the true volume in a real test. It will be in fresh water. Later, when completion as progressed further down, I like to take it in the ocean to test the watertightness of the removable main deck.

Hi JockScott.

Meanwhile, first of all, thanks for the appreciation.
I'm glad you are satisfied.

For me it wasn't work but fun. Furthermore, I refreshed and improved the knowledge (albeit little) I had about "Rhinoceros".

Your method provided a good result compared to the exact value (for the moment we can take the Rhinoceros result as the exact reference).

Your method may not be suitable for hulls different from yours, where you just need to remove obvious volumes (those triangles you were talking about).
I am referring to very tapered hulls with very different "waterlines". For example, it could not be applied to the hull of the model ship I am building or to many yachts I have seen in this forum.
Let's remember that the submerged hull of a supertanker is, most likely, the one that comes closest to the submerged prism.

However, I congratulate you because you have identified on your own, simply by observing, an effective and, above all, very simple method.
For this I admire you.
I am very much in agreement with you on this.

Regarding section 139, let me explain further. I don't want to mislead you.
It's not section 139 that has a problem.
The problem is that the number of ordinates in the drawing does not correspond to the one in the table, because number 83 is missing.
This meant that the alignment was wrong and I noticed it because the math never added up and the line (in the part marked by the red arrow) was not coherent.
However, it is a problem overcome and solved. It was just to give you a detailed report.

Section 169 is not a problem. There are no errors there. I didn't draw it because it's above the waterline, so it's not part of the submerged volume.


Don't worry about the time spent getting these results out for me it wasn't a hassle but fun.
I look forward to seeing the developments of your ship model.

P.S. Before putting it in the water, do not already set it up with all 32 kg. Leave a margin of four five kilograms but put at the last. But I think you've already thought about this.

By the way, will the launch be in the sea or in a lake?