...........Why would they put all those kinks in if ,as "engineer" Mike Johns implies, shape has little or no effect on stiffness?
You will find many such quotes, given and supported by "engineer" Mike Johns, on BD.net, the site Smack quotes as factual.
You were caught out with dishonesty repeatedly on BD net and driven off by (un)popular appeal, dishonesty seems to be your hallmark these days too and it's getting worse.
Do you really believe all your posts or are you aware that you are getting a name throughout the world as a spin artist never to be trusted?
No body ever attacked you ever for being part aboriginal. BD net is strictly moderated and nothing racist is tolerated. You are simply lying.
The coast guard were never attacked on BD net for supporting you. In fact you tried to imply that a safety check once by the coastguard amounted to vindication of your design. It was simply pointed out that a safety gear check is just that.
Lets come back to shape and stiffness since you have been trying to mock me with that.
It was your contention that shape adds stiffness and therefore no framing was/is necessary on your metal foldup boats. You suggested up to variously 50, 60 and even once 65 feet.
Now read this slowly ……I and others spent some time and effort trying to show you the different between tensile, shear and buckling strength. How a framed thin panel is in tension under load, and is much stronger than a shaped unframed thin panel and why, and how a sheet of steel or stiffener that's bent and fixed under a lot of stress buckles very easily from external loads. The last is a little harder to understand and it appears the whole lot went completely over your head.
The corollary you took from this is that because I said you were misinformed I am therefore saying shape doesn't add stiffness ! That's fairly typical of your level of understanding of engineering.
As an illustration; why did your initial designs buckle and rotate their keels up into the boat on relatively gentle grounding for example?
The answer is that the imagined strength from shape didn't exist and a pre stressed shaped panel has two stable states and the transition is known as 'snap through'.
The solution to this initial design flaw was to add 'framing' by using an inbuilt tank end to strengthen that area. Other parts of your boat designs still apparently damage easily from grounding. So what passes for a 36 footer will not pass for a 60 footer. I also offered to help you ( and consequently your future clients) to alter the design and put a small amount of material in a few strategic places to improve the design considerably. Your response was complete disinterest and a spate of very ignorant attacks on the process of load based design.
I think a lot of this bluster is because you are completely compromised by your past, misinformed advice, posts and publications. Now you are too entrenched in a stinking mire. So you throw lots of mud. But seems everyone is on to you here too.
But lets come back to the fact that if you can't link to anything it's just a complete fabrication. As I gave examples above.
