combination spanner: drop forged steel vs. chrome vanadium

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:28:58 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

If you mean five barrels in a row then that
is about 14 feet, or a little over 4 metre's.
I would suggest a catamaran - two lengths of
5 containers in parallel.

OK, any suggestions what wood to use? The raft
part will be 3.5 meters square and then some
additional is required for a centerboard, mast,
possibly skeg, and so on.

Centerboard and mast? You expect to sail this thing?

As for wood, I have no idea what woods are available in Sweden but in
the U.S. I would take any soft wood that was the cheapest - assuming
things like no loose knots, fairly straight, etc.

My own feeling that as a boat this is not going to meet your
expectations, but for a moored fishing platform for fishing or
swimming it would be fine.

My suggestions would be to search "+free+boat+design+stitch and glue"
and check prices for materials for a design you like. FIRST.

For example see:
http://www.christinedemerchant.com/f...oat-plans.html

or the many others.

Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy
than the Vasa(Wasa?). It certainly does not
fit in with historical vessels in the region,
and if you are going Viking it is going to
take two or three months to reach England, or
France :-)

So you know about all that.

Well, I am/was a boat nut. My wife and I lived for large portions of
the time on a 40 ft. sail boat for about a 10m year period :-)

Well, the Vikings (some 800-1100) had perfected
the craft for generations so obviously there is
no comparison. And they didn't use rafts, at
least not for their journeys to England
and France.

The Viking ships (using the term as a verb) were very well designed
and constructed for the period but were designed for a specific
function, Fast, Large Crew, relatively shallow draft, etc.

A "knorr" (Knorr, knarr?) was a very different type although using the
same type of construction. A shorter (slower) wider, deeper design for
cargo carrying with a small crew.

Vasa (or Wasa) was a royal warship (out of oak)
which sank in 1628, immediatly upon starting
the maiden voyage.

No, I got the print from this book so I suppose
it is Polynesian if any:

@book{det-stora-vågspelet,
author = {Alain Brun and Bengt Danielsson},
ISBN = 9177988515,
publisher = {Carlsson},
title = {Det stora vågspelet: Tahiti Nui-expeditionen},
year = {1994 (originally 1959)}
}

I found an English synopsis of the book and apparently they voyaged
from Tahiti to Chile, a distance of about 7,933 Km - in a straight
line - in approximately 7 months, or say 212 days. About 37 km. a day.
or 1.5 km/hr.... Normal marching speeds carrying a load is in the 3 -
3.5 MPH range, perhaps 5 - 6 km/hr.

This isn't an accurate figure as they wandered all over the place but
it is vindictive of both the speed and maneuverability of the "raft".

Another point is that the raft fell apart before they reached land :-)

to get office furniture you hired a carpenter
and he came to your office and made it.

I wish it was like that here because that would
mean a lot of work

But much lower pay :-)

If you look into it the Scandinavians had 100% employment in their
home countries. So why did they go Viking? :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:37:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/24/2016 3:38 AM, John B. wrote:


Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy than the Vasa(Wasa?).

We saw the Vasa in its museum a few years ago. It's still one of the
most amazing museums we've ever visited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

Did you ever visit the Mary Rose Museum in England?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 7/24/2016 11:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:37:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/24/2016 3:38 AM, John B. wrote:


Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy than the Vasa(Wasa?).

We saw the Vasa in its museum a few years ago. It's still one of the
most amazing museums we've ever visited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

Did you ever visit the Mary Rose Museum in England?

Not yet. Should I put it on my list?


--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. wrote:

Centerboard and mast? You expect to sail
this thing?

I don't expect anything except that it'll be
interesting and fun to build. I think it will
work out fine in the water as long as I stick
to the plan but if it doesn't maybe I'll build
a second version learning from my mistakes

I found an English synopsis of the book and
apparently they voyaged from Tahiti to Chile,
a distance of about 7,933 Km - in a straight
line - in approximately 7 months, or say 212
days. About 37 km. a day. or 1.5 km/hr....
Normal marching speeds carrying a load is in
the 3 - 3.5 MPH range, perhaps 5 - 6 km/hr.

This isn't an accurate figure as they
wandered all over the place but it is
vindictive of both the speed and
maneuverability of the "raft".

There were three ships (rafts with masts)
involved. One was from Tahiti to Chile.
This got caught in a huge storm and they were
rescued by a big ship, tho there was no real
panic when they abandoned the vessel which was
seaworthy at the time.

After this, in Chile, they built a new ship to
do the trip in reverse, basically the Kon-Tiki
voyage a decade later, and they aimed for
Tahiti in particular, not just any island.
The second ship was in design very close to the
first one.

However, it started to sink and after peerless
hardships they built a third raft, while
onboard the second!

On this, third raft, they crashed into some
Polynesian island and were rescued, only the
captain who had been out of it with pneumonia
half the trip hit his head and died in
the water.

If you are a boat nut you'll find it super
interesting, not the least because of all the
hilarious/horrific situations described by the
acting captain, because during all the
struggles the rest of the crew was either
mentally instable or hopeless landlubber, and
the patience he showed explaining things in the
face of extreme danger is amazing.

If you look into it the Scandinavians had
100% employment in their home countries.
So why did they go Viking? :-)

There were reasons of adventure, culture, and
religion, but if you're looking for an economic
analysis the popular one is there were big
families back then, however only the oldest son
got his father's land. So while he was happy
with the situation, his younger but very able
brothers were bent on conquest

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 58 Blogomatic articles -

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:48:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/24/2016 11:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:37:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/24/2016 3:38 AM, John B. wrote:


Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy than the Vasa(Wasa?).

We saw the Vasa in its museum a few years ago. It's still one of the
most amazing museums we've ever visited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

Did you ever visit the Mary Rose Museum in England?

Not yet. Should I put it on my list?

It is probably the most extensive collection of commonly used objects
that exist from the mid 1500's in England.

I think if I were going to the U.K. I would plan a visit.

At one time I was interested in archery, particularly "long Bows" and
from the equipment salvaged with the Mary Rose there has been a very
large addition to the knowledge in that area as prior to the Mary Rose
no examples of long bows from the period of their greatest use
existed. Draw weight, for example, had been estimated to have been in
the 90 - 100 lb. range until bows with a pull weight of 100 - 185
lbs., at 30 inches, were found on the Mary Rose.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:13:02 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Centerboard and mast? You expect to sail
this thing?

I don't expect anything except that it'll be
interesting and fun to build. I think it will
work out fine in the water as long as I stick
to the plan but if it doesn't maybe I'll build
a second version learning from my mistakes

I suggest that a much better method of learning is to learn from
other's mistakes, rather than one's own. A really competent engineer
when asked to design a thing-a-ma-jig will first search the literature
to discover all he can about previous designs, failures and uses.

Think of a guy designing a parachute. Learning from one own errors
might not be possible.

In fact, engineering is largely a study of failures and how to prevent
them from failing again. If a bridge falls down one does not slavishly
build another one exactly the same :-)


I found an English synopsis of the book and
apparently they voyaged from Tahiti to Chile,
a distance of about 7,933 Km - in a straight
line - in approximately 7 months, or say 212
days. About 37 km. a day. or 1.5 km/hr....
Normal marching speeds carrying a load is in
the 3 - 3.5 MPH range, perhaps 5 - 6 km/hr.

This isn't an accurate figure as they
wandered all over the place but it is
vindictive of both the speed and
maneuverability of the "raft".

There were three ships (rafts with masts)
involved. One was from Tahiti to Chile.
This got caught in a huge storm and they were
rescued by a big ship, tho there was no real
panic when they abandoned the vessel which was
seaworthy at the time.

After this, in Chile, they built a new ship to
do the trip in reverse, basically the Kon-Tiki
voyage a decade later, and they aimed for
Tahiti in particular, not just any island.
The second ship was in design very close to the
first one.

However, it started to sink and after peerless
hardships they built a third raft, while
onboard the second!

On this, third raft, they crashed into some
Polynesian island and were rescued, only the
captain who had been out of it with pneumonia
half the trip hit his head and died in
the water.

If you are a boat nut you'll find it super
interesting, not the least because of all the
hilarious/horrific situations described by the
acting captain, because during all the
struggles the rest of the crew was either
mentally instable or hopeless landlubber, and
the patience he showed explaining things in the
face of extreme danger is amazing.

If you look into it the Scandinavians had
100% employment in their home countries.
So why did they go Viking? :-)

There were reasons of adventure, culture, and
religion, but if you're looking for an economic
analysis the popular one is there were big
families back then, however only the oldest son
got his father's land. So while he was happy
with the situation, his younger but very able
brothers were bent on conquest

I suggest that adventures may be a little optimistic :-) although
religion may very well have entered into it as I have read references
that the expansion of Christianity northward might have influenced the
peoples there to immigrate, or at least in some instances.

Again, from what I have read, the basic reason for going Viking was an
effort to get valuables. But when they reached England and France the
found that the land was so much better then at home that they stayed
:-)

By he way, he earliest record of a Viking raid in England seems to
have described them as Danes:

"787 In this year [ . . .] came first three ships of Norwegians from
Hørthaland [around Hardanger Fjord]: and then the reeve rode thither
and tried to compel them to go to the royal manor, for he did not know
what they we and then they slew him. These were the first ships of
the Danes to come to England."
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:

I suggest that a much better method of
learning is to learn from other's mistakes,
rather than one's own. A really competent
engineer when asked to design
a thing-a-ma-jig will first search the
literature to discover all he can about
previous designs, failures and uses.

Actually, I have read every book on rafts I've
come across! And I have written a long article
on the Kon-Tiki expedition which focuses on
the practical side to it:

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/artic...i/kon-tiki.pdf

That said, if you have a particular book in
mind I'll see if I can get it

I suggest that adventures may be a little
optimistic :-)

.... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense that
young, discontent men get ideas and then they
just do it, like Nike, tho that is Greek
mythology and not Nordic

although religion may very well have entered
into it as I have read references that the
expansion of Christianity northward

Well, it was a lengthy process and the old
habits and beliefs lingered on. But I think it
is safe to say Christianity had a calming
influence on the whole...

You know their notion of paradise? A place were
you can eat, drink and fight, and the next day,
there isn't a hangover or a single mark to
tell, so you can do it all over, every day!

Again, from what I have read, the basic
reason for going Viking was an effort to get
valuables.

Yes, the Europeans at this time were not as
tough as the Vikings so in the beginning at
least it was too easy to resist

By he way, he earliest record of a Viking
raid in England seems to have described them
as Danes

Indeed, the Danes are more notorious than the
Swedes for aggression, in particular to the
west, while the Swedes were not only aggressive,
they were cunning merchants to the East as well
(to proto-Russia and the Byzantine Empire).

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 58 Blogomatic articles -

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:56:37 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

I suggest that a much better method of
learning is to learn from other's mistakes,
rather than one's own. A really competent
engineer when asked to design
a thing-a-ma-jig will first search the
literature to discover all he can about
previous designs, failures and uses.

Actually, I have read every book on rafts I've
come across! And I have written a long article
on the Kon-Tiki expedition which focuses on
the practical side to it:

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/artic.../korn-tiki.pdf

But rafts were not the point of the Kon-Tiki expedition. (and I did
read the book) the whole purpose was to demonstrate that movement of
people from S. America to the Islands was possible.

By the way, the photograph that heads your paper probably isn't at all
historically accurate as it is unlikely that sufficient heavy cloth to
make the sails shown probably would have been available in S. America
in that period.

That said, if you have a particular book in
mind I'll see if I can get it

No, I don't have a book available as first you must define your plan.

Is the plan to build a raft? Or to build a raft that can be moved? Or
to build a raft that can be sailed? If sailed, in what environment?
Sailing in a trade wind or monsoon weather pattern is vastly different
from sailing in Scandinavia. And if sailed, than on voyages? Or back
and forth on a lake?

Once you have defined your plan in detail than building something to
fit the plan is pretty easy.

I suggest that adventures may be a little
optimistic :-)

... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense that
young, discontent men get ideas and then they
just do it, like Nike, tho that is Greek
mythology and not Nordic

Which sounds very exciting... until you look into the finances of an
expedition. While adventurous individuals certainly might have
volunteered I suspect it was down-to-earth "wealthy" people that
actually made it possible.



although religion may very well have entered
into it as I have read references that the
expansion of Christianity northward

Well, it was a lengthy process and the old
habits and beliefs lingered on. But I think it
is safe to say Christianity had a calming
influence on the whole...

You know their notion of paradise? A place were
you can eat, drink and fight, and the next day,
there isn't a hangover or a single mark to
tell, so you can do it all over, every day!

Well, one description of the Moslem Paradise is that one will have 47
young women to entertain you through eternity :-)

Which, to be accurate, is not what the Koran says. It is what someone
"commenting on the Koran wrote.

Again, from what I have read, the basic
reason for going Viking was an effort to get
valuables.

Yes, the Europeans at this time were not as
tough as the Vikings so in the beginning at
least it was too easy to resist


Historian Peter Hunter Blair remarked that the Viking raiders would
have been astonished "at finding so many communities which housed
considerable wealth and whose inhabitants carried no arms"

By he way, he earliest record of a Viking
raid in England seems to have described them
as Danes

Indeed, the Danes are more notorious than the
Swedes for aggression, in particular to the
west, while the Swedes were not only aggressive,
they were cunning merchants to the East as well
(to proto-Russia and the Byzantine Empire).

In fact it may well be that the origins of Moscow was a Swedish
trading camp :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:

But rafts were not the point of the Kon-Tiki
expedition. (and I did read the book) the
whole purpose was to demonstrate that
movement of people from S. America to the
Islands was possible.

They built the raft as closely to what they
knew about what the originals looked like.
Not just to make their claim hold (more) true
but also as a safety measure because they
figured, assuming the theory correct, they'd be
(more) safe if they just did it exactly like
the "natives"...

There is adventure and theory in the book but
a large portion of it is practical things: the
raft, fishing, water, navigation, etc.
One would ask for even more but books in the
the 1940s weren't 600 pages like they are
today...

By the way, the photograph that heads your
paper probably isn't at all historically
accurate as it is unlikely that sufficient
heavy cloth to make the sails shown probably
would have been available in S. America in
that period.

It is a photograph of the Kon-Tiki raft, i.e.
somewhere 1947.

Is the plan to build a raft? Or to build
a raft that can be moved? Or to build a raft
that can be sailed? If sailed, in what
environment? Sailing in a trade wind or
monsoon weather pattern is vastly different
from sailing in Scandinavia. And if sailed,
than on voyages? Or back and forth on a lake?

I'll start building the raft with wood,
barrels, and rope. If it floats, the sky is the
limit.

Putting a mast etc. on is an alternative tho it
probably won't be what boat people consider
"sailing"...

Once you have defined your plan in detail than
building something to fit the plan is
pretty easy.

I typically don't plan things. When you plan,
often you get stuck on that phase and the plans
never materialize. If you just do it at least
something will happen.

... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense
that young, discontent men get ideas and
then they just do it, like Nike, tho that is
Greek mythology and not Nordic

Which sounds very exciting... until you look
into the finances of an expedition.
While adventurous individuals certainly might
have volunteered I suspect it was
down-to-earth "wealthy" people that actually
made it possible.

Well, the communities weren't extreamly poor
back then. Not all of them anyway. And if you
were a poor guy who wanted to be a Viking
warrior I'm sure you could start on someone
else's ship and work you way up. It was know as
"upward mobility"

The (successful) voyages themselves with all
the trade and plunder created profits, for sure.

Historian Peter Hunter Blair remarked that
the Viking raiders would have been astonished
"at finding so many communities which housed
considerable wealth and whose inhabitants
carried no arms"

Crazy

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 58 Blogomatic articles -

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:59:43 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

But rafts were not the point of the Kon-Tiki
expedition. (and I did read the book) the
whole purpose was to demonstrate that
movement of people from S. America to the
Islands was possible.

They built the raft as closely to what they
knew about what the originals looked like.
Not just to make their claim hold (more) true
but also as a safety measure because they
figured, assuming the theory correct, they'd be
(more) safe if they just did it exactly like
the "natives"...

The present consensus is that Hawaii and the Polynesian Island were
first populated in about 200 BCE and Hawaii in 300 BCE. Hawaii had a
known second wave of settlement in about 1,000 CE.


There is adventure and theory in the book but
a large portion of it is practical things: the
raft, fishing, water, navigation, etc.
One would ask for even more but books in the
the 1940s weren't 600 pages like they are
today...

By the way, the photograph that heads your
paper probably isn't at all historically
accurate as it is unlikely that sufficient
heavy cloth to make the sails shown probably
would have been available in S. America in
that period.

It is a photograph of the Kon-Tiki raft, i.e.
somewhere 1947.

Is the plan to build a raft? Or to build
a raft that can be moved? Or to build a raft
that can be sailed? If sailed, in what
environment? Sailing in a trade wind or
monsoon weather pattern is vastly different
from sailing in Scandinavia. And if sailed,
than on voyages? Or back and forth on a lake?

I'll start building the raft with wood,
barrels, and rope. If it floats, the sky is the
limit.

Putting a mast etc. on is an alternative tho it
probably won't be what boat people consider
"sailing"...

Once you have defined your plan in detail than
building something to fit the plan is
pretty easy.

I typically don't plan things. When you plan,
often you get stuck on that phase and the plans
never materialize. If you just do it at least
something will happen.

If you don't plan things than you make a lot of errors. Do Not take Up
Bridge Building :-)

... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense
that young, discontent men get ideas and
then they just do it, like Nike, tho that is
Greek mythology and not Nordic

Which sounds very exciting... until you look
into the finances of an expedition.
While adventurous individuals certainly might
have volunteered I suspect it was
down-to-earth "wealthy" people that actually
made it possible.

Well, the communities weren't extreamly poor
back then. Not all of them anyway. And if you
were a poor guy who wanted to be a Viking
warrior I'm sure you could start on someone
else's ship and work you way up. It was know as
"upward mobility"

I suspect that in the early years that like all of Europe the economy
was very much subsistence farming and pay the Jarl his taxes. I would
guess very little cash was in circulation.

I read, from the Fóstbræðra saga that a words was worth a half mark
of gold. In saga-age Iceland, that represented the value of sixteen
milk-cows, a very substantial sum.

A ship is difficult to estimate but Soren Nielsen, the builder of the
Sea Stallion estimated that in the Viking era, it would have taken
about 10 skilled ship builders and 5 untrained hands, about 6 months
to build a large Viking long ship. Which apparently is only the actual
ship building. Logging out the timber, would have taken, probably a
whole winter.

I think that as in Europe at the time these expeditions were probably
a family project. I got a ship, my brother in law has a ship and my
wife's sister's husband is building a ship. Lets go down there to that
big island and we'll all get rich :-)

As for "working your way up? Given that the crew of say a 20 bench
ship would be about 40 oarsmen, a couple of steersmen a Captain and
perhaps the Jarl and some of his men. How to work your way up?
If you read the Sagas they seem to be largely about the actions of
"the boss" and his men.

I suppose that running ahead of the mob might work, for a while. and,
I would suppose that people would be slapping you on the shoulder and
saying "You are the Man". But it might be a short career :-)

The (successful) voyages themselves with all
the trade and plunder created profits, for sure.

Historian Peter Hunter Blair remarked that
the Viking raiders would have been astonished
"at finding so many communities which housed
considerable wealth and whose inhabitants
carried no arms"

Crazy
--
cheers,

John B.