I'm completing the table with the information you gave me. The numbers didn't add up, now I've deciphered the numbers I wasn't reading with the new photo.
However, I will send you all the tables and drawings of Rhinoceros with the measurements so you too can check if I have made mistakes.
We are almost at the end now.
To be clear, here are three images of what I'm doing.
I don't know if I'll be able to use Rhinoceros in these five days because I have to go away for work, it's one thing to write messages with my cell phone, I can do that anywhere, it's another thing to draw on the PC. But I don't think you're in a hurry.
I wanted the thicknesses of the frames and the spaces between the frames because I always prefer to take measurements directly on the model itself. Even for electrical matters I don't just rely on the data provided but I do direct tests where I can.
But in this regard now a doubt arises in my mind, perhaps I have taken a construction method as obvious.
A question out of pure curiosity because it has nothing to do with the calculations we are doing: How did you make the hull?
Could you send me a photo showing the inside of the hull?
I was probably off track.
1. Prism method: done.
2. Multiplication method: we are almost completing it, it is almost finished.
3. Method with Rhinoceros: If you want me to try to draw the surface of the hull entirely on the PC, I need at least the bow and the measurements on it.
Then it will be fun and interesting to compare the results of the three methods with the result of the water test. The only one to tell us the absolute truth.
In theory, method two should be more precise than number one and method three more precise than number two.