Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
History
Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
Alert (Ship : 1877-1893); Liability for marine accidents; Navigation -- Australia -- History; Shipwrecks -- Australia -- Victoria
Some of the witnesses examined at the trial stated that there was
“no hard and fast rule with regard to the length, breadth, and
depth of ships.” While agreeing as to the truth of this statement,
I may add that, in my opinion, it is a great pity there is _not_
such a rule to go by so that shipowners could not get a sea-going
ship built just whatever shape they pleased. Difference of opinion
there may be—and perhaps must be—concerning the exact proportions
of a sea-worthy ship; but there can be no difference of opinion
regarding certain natural laws; for instance, a pyramid won’t stand
upon its apex, and hence ships built on what I may call the “rule of
thumb” principle are more apt to be wrong than right. Independently
of loading and rig, the longer a ship is, the less her ability to
keep out of the trough of the sea; her depth is the measure of her
strength to resist a vertical strain, and her breadth of beam is the
measure of her strength to stand a side blow. When iron steamers were
first built they were constructed about five times as long as they
were broad, and about seven times as long as their depth. These were
considered safe proportions, but a genius arose who discovered—after
studying the twelfth proposition of Euclid’s first book no doubt—that
without any other alteration than adding two and a-half breadths to
a steamship’s length, she could carry just double the quantity of
cargo, while the working expense of the ship was not much increased.
This, therefore, is the real reason why steamships are frequently
built with their length ten times their width and sixteen times their
depth. A few are even worse than this, their depth being only an
eighteenth part of their length! The latter are not worthy of being
called _ships_, they are mere _logs_ from a sea-going point of view!
This much may, however, be said, that, in spite of the bad shape of a
ship, a great deal, by means of loading and rig, can be done to help
a “lame” vessel to behave herself. At the same time the reverse is
also true that the best shaped ship ever built can be “crippled” by
loading and rig. Any seaman reading this will thoroughly understand
what I mean; but as this book is written for both “sea and shore”
readers, perhaps, for the benefit of the latter class, I had better
explain the apparent paradox, thus: Take a ship, the best and most
sea-worthy ever built, load her with a dead cargo, say pig-iron, as
much as she can safely carry, stow it fore and aft in the hold as low
down as possible, that is, on the ship’s floor or “skin.” Send her to
sea, and when she gets into heavy weather she will be so “stiff” that
she will strain herself, and shake the masts out of her. On the other
hand take a similar ship, put the iron cargo in the tween-decks, that
is, the upper hold, and she will be so tender, or “crank,” that in
a moderately heavy sea she will roll over and founder. The reasons
are simply these: In the instance of the first ship the centre of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account