Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Advert

New Replies

Report Bug

Help/FAQs

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

This topic is empty.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 55 total)

1 2 3 →

Author

Posts
14 June 2012 at 15:49 #7939
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
What would he have done next
Advert

14 June 2012 at 15:49 #34880
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
As a structural engineer I have always been fascinated by Brunel's approach to solving problems when he designed his bridges. But I also appreciate how his ship designs developed and I often wonder what his next ship would have looked like.

Brunel paved the way for people like Armstrong to build the huge warships that dominated the late Victorian era, but what if Brunel had lived beyond 53 what would his warships have looked like and would his engines have been better than William Armstrongs?

What I really need is an expert on Brunels ships who could give me an insight into what the next generation of ships would have been like.

Paul
14 June 2012 at 16:53 #34882
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
A difficult question!

I think that Brunel was a great ideas man and his original idea for the Great Eastern, was to make the ship longer than the biggest wave crest to wave crest and eliminate the Rocking Horse effect

At 700 feet, this may be a good length to start with, but he seems to have ignored the broadside weather and the ship being only 60 foot wide!

From the old etchings, GE rolledso violently, as much as 40 degrees either way, passengers were seriously injured or even killed, by the heavy fittings, pianos and furniture rolling about the caverneous saloons.

So his next ship to cure this problem, would have been a circular ship……800 feet in diameter?

So we`ve now got a circular ship with paddlewheels on either side, which would also act as the rudder!

For the battleship version, we could have hundreds of Armstrong type breech loaders, all round the perimeter and could fire in sequence as the ship rotates like a sort of heavy dooty Gatling gun

It sounds a bit crackers, but I seem to like the idea of a giant circular boat, that didn`t roll about!

Thinking about it, we could have a normal ships hull below deck and outrigger pontoons at the outer edges…….A bit like a Tri-moran?

Paul, for your next experiment, compare a normal slender hull and a circular hull in the bath and swish the water about a bit and see what happens? A central mast would highlight the rolling effect

Would Brunel have thought about airscrew propellors?….Now, there`s a thought!

That`s enough from me, he says, reaching for another bottle of Aspirins

Bob
14 June 2012 at 18:27 #34885
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Hello Curly

800ft… I'll have a think

Paul
14 June 2012 at 18:52 #34886
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
A circular ship has already been done. Russian pre-dreadnought sort of thing, as an experiment.

Ashley
14 June 2012 at 19:17 #34888
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
The russian ship

Called Vice Admiral Popov it was 90ft across and pitched even in a calm sea, the gun recoil caused the ship to spin slowly.

Bobs idea of a circular ship 800ft dia would solve any pitching problems.

Paul
15 June 2012 at 07:12 #34890
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Well Curly you have put the cat amongst the pigeons with your circular ship idea.

I emailed your idea to an academic friend who speciality is Victorian engineering and we spent an hour discussing the probability.

We both concurred that as a ship it would be a non starter due to its lack of speed but as a self powered floating fort it would certainly fit in with the engineering and military thinking of the time.

My academic chum is now perusing the idea as an unofficial academic feasibility study involving the design, materials and technology of the period.

Do you have any further thoughts on the practical aspects of constructing and operating such a beast, we both think that Brunel would have used props rather than paddle wheels and that tugs would have been used to tow the 'fort' into position.

Paul

Edited By The Fat Controller on 15/06/2012 07:17:10
15 June 2012 at 07:41 #34891
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Hello Paul

This is an interesting development based on a tongue in cheek crackpot idea!

The beauty of paddle wheels is the ability to simply rest on the beach when the tide goes out

I did think of a paddle device similar to tank tracks, where great lengths of paddles could be used, giving enormous driving force?

On the other hand, the 800 foot diameter shape could be square and the caterpillar tracks would really fit nicely and maybe look right!

This giant ship is really a floating dock and could have berths for powerful tugs to park up and could also add to the power source?

Think of it's unsinkability?…….The hull could be dozens of watertight compartments and cannon fire would never sink it!

Food for further thought?……Pick the bones out of that!

Now!…..Where's those Aspirins?

Curly
15 June 2012 at 07:51 #34892
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Good Morning Curly

The weight of the beast would preclude it being able to be mobile on land but the multi compartment idea was discussed last night as was the construction being performed in a dry dock behind a coffer dam.

Paul
15 June 2012 at 08:22 #34893
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Paul

The tank tracks I mentioned, we're not for land movement but enormous elongated paddle wheels, which could be a series of 50 foot lengths along the sides

But coming back to the original idea for a stable craft, is the width being the same as the length

There are plenty of modern giant boxy cruise ships, on YouTube, suffering terribly in storms!

So why not bolt two such ships together at about 800 feet apart?

It would make a very interesting model?

Curly in the realms of fantasy
15 June 2012 at 10:53 #34896
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Bob

Two ships bolted together in such a way would be to stiff to survive in anything more than a light swell but if the connecting links were hinged then you would have one hell of a white knuckle ride passing between the ships.

Paul
15 June 2012 at 13:44 #34897
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Hello Bob Brunel

Just to let you know that the yanks are involved now…emails are flying backwards and forwards across the atlantic.

Where would you mount the engines?

Paul
15 June 2012 at 14:03 #34899
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Chaps. look at all those props!!! what a model to make!! i KNOW someone has made one as I have seen a picture, somewhere. Wow. Putting a large single "bilge keel" would solve any propensity for course deviation in a model, I suppose?

Hinged model….hmmm…tricky

Ashley
15 June 2012 at 16:15 #34900
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Fellow crackpots

I still think a super wide ship is required for stability……As Brunel may have come up with?

A GE type ship midships with two outboard hulls acting as sponsons

Each hull could have multiple screw propellors

The main structure could carry enough coal to circumnavigate the earth, but would have a struggle passing through the Suez canal. And to prove the point, let's go to Oz via Cape Horn!

The main snag with having three hulls, is that the waves coulld get through, in the broadside direction?

So a flat boxy shape may win the day?

Bob in Cuckoo Land
15 June 2012 at 18:13 #34901
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
Bob

Regarding your optimistic idea of airscrews, whilst it is unlikely that Brunel would have devised such a method of propulsion the academics consider that it is entirely feasible that he would have developed a windmill driven electrical generation system.

They would still like to have your opinion on where Brunel would have mounted the engines.

Not so much in cuckoo land then are you!

Paul
15 June 2012 at 19:00 #34903
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Hello Paul and the Academics

Where could the steam engines be positioned? Modern day cars are mostly front wheel drive these days, so why not have them fore and aft?……Four on each hull? The boilers would be in a similar position as the Great Eastern layout

The outer ones could do the steering?

How would a hull, 800 feet square behave in an Atlantic storm?……It doesn`t bare thinking about!

Bob
16 June 2012 at 18:04 #34916
ashley needham
Participant
@ashleyneedham69188
Chaps. I dont like throwing the thingy in the wotsit and dampening the mojo, but Mr B never saw his creation sail and I suspect that he would have been very dissapointed with it. The engine power just wasnt there, was it? A good idea sadly let down by the available technology. Sorry..someone elses technology.

On this basis, I think that the engine problem would have been the next thing to tackle.

Would he have just doubled up on everything…and have a boat with a few more funnels for the boilers?

Would he have gone to all prop propulsion? two, or more. They are more efficient at using the available power.

There was lot right about the GE, the cabin layout, the light wells, the double skinned hull. These things may have been developed with the GE Mk2,

I have seen hinged ship designs in Boys Own annuals and the like, and even round ships or things as suggested so far, but I am sure that the victorian mind of Mr B would not quite have gone that far.

I would like to see a "what if" GE mk2,. An extrapolation of the original, with technology developed just a few years later and available to Mt B…. Now THAT would be a challenge, to realise a Mk2 GE….

Ashley
16 June 2012 at 18:58 #34919
Colin Bishop
Moderator
@colinbishop34627
The problem with circular ships is that they rely on form stability – up to a point! If the seas are big enough, and the wave crests far enough apart then the rim of the 'plate'will dig in and the ship would be swept by solid green water which would do a lot of damage. The most stable ships are those which sit 'in' the water rather than 'upon' it. They 'go with the flow' – so to speak.

I think there are a lot of instances where ideas are in advance of the technical capabilities of the day – the Babbage difference engine for example.

But you never know, a mind like Brunel's was capable of coming up with ideas which might have set technology on a quite different path to that which with we are familiar. He might even have invented the hovercraft!

Colin
17 June 2012 at 07:05 #34928
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
It is entirely possible that Brunel would have developed massive cannon to fit this huge floating fort, these weapons would have been along the lines of the rail mounted weapons used during the world wars.

The speculation is that these cannon would have been breech loading and capable of firing a 32in shell over 25 miles.
17 June 2012 at 07:58 #34929
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
I often wonder about the input, actually contributed by Brunel, in the vast array of projects and creations, he is accredited with?

There are only 24 hours in the day, yet Brunel is accredited with three big ships, the Great Western railway with all the locos, tunnels and bridges, the Broad gauge system, the pneumatic tubular drive system, Bristol suspension bridge and goodness knows what else?

The Great Eastern was actually designed by Scott Russell shipyard……So who actually designed the rest?

The same also applies to Telford, Stephenson, Armstrong……etc

Just a Sunday morning topic for discussion

Bob
17 June 2012 at 09:19 #34931
Colin Bishop
Moderator
@colinbishop34627
Brunel was a concepts man as well as an engineer so he was able to have a finger in a great many pies.

Paul,

I don't think very large guns on a floating base would have been very effective as it would have been difficult to hit anything. The slightest motion of the 'ship' would put the aim off by several miles I would imagine. Of course the Germans did have the 'Paris Gun' in WW1with a range of 80 miles but that was essentially a siege weapon which fired a 210 lb shell. One of the best examples of naval support gunfire was HMS Rodney at the D day landings where targets 22 miles inland were engaged with her 16 inch main armament.

I believe that both the US and the UK have been developing super long range guns of around 8 inch calibre (the Daring class are designed to be retrofitted with bigger guns) but I think that the shell itself has some sort of onboard guidance mechanism which corrects the aim after it has been fired.

Colin
17 June 2012 at 11:33 #34932
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Lets not dismiss the crazy 800 foot square ship, just yet

The main reason for the outlandish size is to bridge the crest of all sea going waves, as Brunel envisaged. Paul asked what would Brunel have invented next, after GE? He would have tried to improve stabilty without a doubt.

We could have a great Eastern hull shape with outer sponsons connected to the hull with a structure similar to Blackpool central pier?

The sponsons need not be enormous and need not project above the waterline

The greatest danger are the giant waves crashing broadside on. The question is…..Would the sponson ride up the wave?……….Probably not…………The wave would carry on and crash into the ships hull……….Similar to the storm waves crashing into Blackpool Prom sea wall!

If the hull is strong enough, so what?……..At least the ship would be reasonably level?

We could also have large openings through the hull to release most of the wave pressure

I know it`s a crazy idea…….Just food for thought

Colin……You say a floating platform would not be a good idea, as the slightest wave motion would upset the guns accuracy…………..Warships have always had this problem since Nelsons days?

Bob
17 June 2012 at 12:12 #34933
Colin Bishop
Moderator
@colinbishop34627
Bob,

What you are describing is not unlike a floating oil rig. The sponsons provide buoyancy and sit below the surface while the legs are high enough to raise the superstructure to allow waves to pass underneath it. Rigs are not very manoueverable though and have to be towed or carried around.

Anyway 800 feet would be insufficient to 'bridge' wave crests, you could be looking at a mile or more in the Atlantic. Cunard's Queen Mary 2 is 1132 feet long and when I was aboard last September she was pitching merrily in moderately rough conditions!

Re the problems with warships and guns, yes, true but Nelson's ships fought at point blank range. By the time you got to Jutland with increased battle ranges of just a few miles the hit rate dropped to maybe 2% of shells fired even with the great technical improvements derived from director control. The longer the range, the more precision you need from the gun and it's mounting. The Paris Gun I mentioned above, had to take into account the rotation of the Earth while the shell was in the air!

Colin
18 June 2012 at 07:09 #34937
Paul T
Participant
@pault84577
The current status of the academic discussion is that Bobs proposal is perfectly feasible as a floating fort which would have fitted in with the military thinking of that time.

It would have been intended for use as a siege or blockade machine and designed to be used in shallow seas, as such it could have been deployed anywhere in the North Sea or Mediterranean and bombarded coastal cities with its long range main armament.

The circular design would have been the best shape to deal with heavy seas and bad weather and would also have been the best shape from a defensive aspect.

At 800ft diameter it would have had a 50ft draft and 40ft freeboard and displace over 83,000 tons.

Designed to be towed into position and then anchored to prevent drifting (just like a modern oil rig) its own propulsion system would have been intended for manoeuvring whilst the main armament was lined up on the target.

As the main guns would only have vertical adjustment the whole ship would have been turned for any horizontal alignment.

As Colin says it would not have been very accurate but siege machines were never expected to have surgical precision as they are primarily terror weapons but the shot from such a cannon, having a very high trajectory, would impact at just under a 1000m per second and inflict enormous damage.

Paul
18 June 2012 at 07:28 #34938
Bob Abell 2
Participant
@bobabell2
Paul and the Academix

The phrase……"Never a truer word was spoken in jest"…….Springs to mind!

Just wondering, who was the intended enemy at the time?

Sounds like a Jules Verne wartime thriller of some sort?

The 50 foot draught sounds a bit OTT?

Anyway, I'm pleased I contributed somewhere along the line!

I still think something needs to be done in combating the perils at sea relative to the big cruise ships?

Bob
Author

Posts