As one of the other participants on bd.net, I'd have to say I'm more amused than anything else.
One of the things I've had a wonderful laugh about at Brent's expense is his utterly ludicrous claim that his steel 31' sailboat can break through 5" thick ice.
Only if dropped from a substantial height....
Brent is a fantasist who actually seems to believe his own BS. He stopped posting on bd.net because nobody was accepting his stories for fact. It's all on record over there. The tissue of outright lies & distortions Mike quotes above is just a small example of the crap Brent has posted in the past, got shot down in flames and then re-posted somewhere else. He's incapable of learning anything new or accepting that he may not always be right.
If we get some 5 inch ice this winter I will show you, after you put a couple of hundred down on a bet.
On bd.net they claimed my boats, with the photos of one surviving 16 days in huge surf on the west coast of Baja, posted by the guy who sailed her home from that trip, were not strong enough. One such critic then went out and bought his" much stronger" plastic cal. He still hasn't accepted my challenge of a demolition derby against my "far too weak" origami boat. So he obviously doesn't believe his on bull! Does Smackdaddy want a demolition derby in his "Much Stronger" Hunter? Another who doesn't really believe his own bull.They claimed that Don Shore, who pounded across 300 yards of Fijian Coral reef then was pulled back across it by a tug , was lying, despite his having many witness around , all of whom they called liars, and covering the story in his book "Around the World on Viski " ( a great read )
Anyone backing me up, including Canadian Coast Guard staff, were accused of being me. They claim to know more about the incident that those who were actually there! So who are the real liars?
They claim calculations based on false rules, which ignore many very relevant factors, are reality, while decades of actual experience are simply anecdotes, implying that calculations are more accurate than actual experience. That is as credible as suggesting that tomorrows weather forecasts can be more accurate than yesterdays weather records! So who are the real liars?
They claimed that fragile plastic thru hulls were better than welded in stainless pipe nipples, which have given me zero trouble in over 30 years, nor anyone else who has used them for far longer.
Wynand was the only one there with any actual, significant amount of boat building experience. When I asked about their cruising experience, he was the only one who answered. He admitted his experience was only limited coastal cruising experience. The rest obviously had none, or they would have certainly crowed about it. Wynand, after criticizing my designs for lack of transverse frames , admitted to having built Dix designs frameless, and posted one on the origamiboats site. He also stated that 3 windward shrouds( 12,000 lbs tensile strength each ) were capable of crushing a steel side deck inwards, (tensile strength 60,000 psi)
Pete Wiley , starting is first ever steel boat project , a design several of my clients have upgraded from, immediately claimed to know more about boatbuilding than someone who had built dozens of them over decades.
One thing all of my critics there had in common. Almost zero steel boat building and long term cruising experience, and a complete inability to understand the effect of shape on structural strength, and a complete inability to comprehend stresses in three dimensional shapes. Thus, they are completely incapable of comprehending anything new in steel boat design, or the use of shape to acquire stiffness.
That site has been completely sabotaged into uselessness, by about a half dozen inexperienced, dense , armchair attack mob, who understand very little about steel boats, and who are incapable of understanding anything new or innovative, so only respond by attacking any suggestion of anything new or innovative .
Some spoke of the need for :"good engineering" . I think "engineering" can be defined as " The judicious application of logic". I gave pages of engineering logic in all these debates. If you want good engineering, you depend on the guy offering a lot of logic, not on someone who automatically , and impulsively attacks logic, without replying to the points of logic made; attacks with childish jeering, without bothering to read the logic offered. I am beginning to see more of that here.
Logic is not valued, nor even allowed in the long run, on that site, rendering it quite useless as a source of good, reliable information.
Breaking thru 5 inch ice takes me a run of many yards, to about 4 .5 knots on impact. The boat rides up over it, then crushes down thru about three feet of it per run. Almost vertical topsides doesn't work, as it meets the ice almost at 90 degrees, which impacts it on end, stopping the boat with far thinner ice.. My current boat has more of an ice breaker bow shape enabling it to climb on top. My last boat didn't and a half inch of ice would stop her.
What do you call someone, who claims to be an engineer , yet who claims that shape has little or no effect on stiffness and strength ( kinda like claiming that pipe, I beam , or square tubing has exactly the same strength and stiffness as a flat bar with the same an mount of material in it)
You call him a LIAR!