[knome]

Well, it is becoming clear to me this is becoming a religious discussion. So I'll try to be brief.

- Your thickness calculations are still incorrect Jeff. You are including the thickness of UNCOMPRESSED netting, which is certainly not the case when using 1/2" hexagonal galvanized bird mesh tied -tightly- to the arnature. Once complete the thickness is barely above the thickness of the main rods

- Re: Fiberglass hulls - I am getting my statement from a Marine surveyor who has done thousands of boats for insurance survey. HE says old solid FG boats are, Quote: "Built like tanks" and that modern boats are 'Rarely' as strong. I'm sure he was talking in 'most of' terms, and there will certainly be exceptions.

- Much of the information I am getting about FC is from two primary sources. (1) Cecil Norris S.N.A.M.E. and (2) Colin Brookes S.N.A.M.E. For those if you whom don't know, this is the much lauded Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. It is an international organization made up of recognized professionals in Naval Architecture. Colin recieved the title 'Master' from SNAME. This distinction is very rarely awarded to individuals on the basis of accomplishment, and he recieved it in recognition of his accomplishments in the realm of Ferrocement. So you can understand when I trust his word on things, considering the USCG and Lloyd's use him to survey FC boats for commercial purposes. His knowledge is much, much more than theoretical. And Cecil Norris designed many. many FC boats for both commercial and recreational purposes. He has since moved on from FC as a material, but in a conversation I had with him, he told me it had nothing to do with FC as suitable material for shipbuilding, "on the contrary. FC is an admirable material. However, the problem of labor costs in mass production always comes back to haunt. I fear FC will always remain a secondary material."

And on, and on, and on....

So, I'd like to end this board debate, which is no doubt amusing the other folks online here. Jeff, if you would like I would be more than willing to take this up via email. My address should be public, and if not I will publish it here for you to have. It seems we are having the kind of spirited debate that science craves. :-)

--Timothy