Canopus and Sculptor

[Guest]

What I don't get is why the possessors of photos of historical interest feel the need to keep them secret. How mean and selfish! Perhaps they have no other means to feel important?

 

I do feel that this mentality goes completely against the grain of all other aspects of the historical community who is so generous to share knowledge of the past, and without them the very fotos we're debating would be insignificant as the scene would have died long ago.

 

IMHO please, get the photos out here, let everyone enjoy, spread the word and the scene will grow - just look what Dibnah did for steam rallies, just from sharing.

 

Publish them in a book and people will buy, fair enough, no issues there - but private collections of photos about other peoples lives and national heritage doesn't sit well with my naturally more generous character.

 

Think of it maybe as investment in the future value of your own historical narrowboats?

 

 

I agree its all rather stupid, but it;s the thin end of a very thick wedge. Owners of photos have the right to do with them as they wish and prevent their images being reproduced. You regard it as selfish and secretive and I agree, but I would argue in favour of them having that right. And I think you would too if you think about it properly.

 

Reproduced for personal gain, yes - for example I copied a photo into a book that I then sold - I get it but.....

[MtB]

 

I do feel that this mentality goes completely against the grain of all other aspects of the historical community who is so generous to share knowledge of the past, and without them the very fotos we're debating would be insignificant as the scene would have died long ago.

 

IMHO please, get the photos out here, let everyone enjoy, spread the word and the scene will grow - just look what Dibnah did for steam rallies, just from sharing.

 

Publish them in a book and people will buy, fair enough, no issues there - but private collections of photos about other peoples lives and national heritage doesn't sit well with my naturally more generous character.

 

Think of it maybe as investment in the future value of your own historical narrowboats?

 

 

A perfectly good argument but when the owners don't agree, you still feel free to ignore their wishes, take their images and spread them around anyway?

[Guest]

 

 

A perfectly good argument but when the owners don't agree, you still feel free to ignore their wishes, take their images and spread them around anyway?

 

But I haven't stolen them, they were in the public domain and still in the public domain so people can see them and even appreciate them beyond their initial potential audience. The only thing that's changed is a new IP address that allows access to them.

 

What does google images do? They reproduce domain photos for the convenience and broader access of the general public, how is that different?

 

How do I stand with my Mac which downloads a copy of an image as a file onto my hard-drive when I view it - is that taking a copy without the author's permission?

 

Surely you have to draw a line somewhere, and to me the logical place for that line would revolve around the concept of profit.

 

Do we have any lawyers or judges amongst us? How would a court rule in this specific case?

 

This is a very interesting and most enjoyable but long overdue debate

Edited December 27, 2016 by dpaws

[ditchcrawler]

Comment in that post that he was going to fast, its a common factor if you go to fast in a restricted channel you climb the bank.

As has been said this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Boaters-Boating-Christopher-Norton-Deuchar/0953151204

Should be compulsory reading for anyone who has a deep drafted boat no matter how good they think they are at boat handling.

I would suggest that anyone who wants to improve their boating skills reads it. I think I will read it again when I get home.

I wonder if these people who hide their photos are the same ones we experienced yesterday. Popping out of the undergrowth photographing our boat from all angles - 4 different photographers none who bothered to make eye contact so I could smile at them. Must a christmas thing - trying out their new toys. All this and we were only travelling 8 locks boxing day cruise.

And they own the copyright to those photos even if they appear on a calendar next year and make the photographer lots of money, you have no claim on it.

Edited December 27, 2016 by ditchcrawler

[Captain Pegg]

JP - you may have missed my post #29

 

"I asked for a second opinion about the design from my father who holds a PhD from the Cranfield Institute of Hydrodynamics, is a world renown figure in fluid dynamics (Fellow of the Institute of both Mechanical and Civil Engineers) and thus can be considered as a competent authority for the purposes of this conversation."

 

I don't mean to be arrogant, but yes, I do consider to have the necessary specialist knowledge at my disposal; probably more so than anyone else I've conversed with to date. I have regularly conversed with Dr Barrass about barge handling in confined channels, his experience and qualifications are listed here: http://www.ship-squat.com/About_Bryan_Barrass.htm. Let's not forget my dear friend and co-poster Jan (Dalslandia) who designs propellors so fluid flow is his area of expertise - and I'm sure many others here are equally modest about their own academic achievements in related fields.

 

All I do is ask why... and you can blame my mother for that

 

Ahh the star, yes, "la stella Canopus" - feminine again!

Nope. I have read every one of your posts on this and other similar threads.

 

These eminent folk will know their theory is just that until tested by modelling and full scale trials. As part of your work did you do any modelling of the behaviour of square flat hulls in very confined and irregular shaped channels of the correct roughness at stupidly slow speeds? Obviously you are now doing full scale trials.

 

I don't doubt that improvements could be made to the hydrodynamic capabilities of narrowboat hulls but I equally recognise there are reasons why no-one has ever thought it significant enough to pursue rigorously. My guess is simply you will ultimately reach the conclusion that finessing the hydronamics of the swims and stern gear is at best secondary to the limitations imposed by basic hull shape and channel characteristics.

 

It all seems a triumph of theory for a relatively unimportant issue. A little like me joining a model railway forum and berating the established members for failing to apply state of the art rail/wheel interface research and missing out on the improvements it would make to the rolling characteristics of their models.

 

JP

Edited December 27, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[mark99]

And they own the copywrite to those photos even if they appear on a calendar next year and make the photographer lots of money, you have no claim on it.

Yes I'm well aware of that. The point is that I did not object so perhaps they should remember that before hiding an image. If that's what they want to do with the image in the future.

Edited December 27, 2016 by mark99

[ditchcrawler]

Nope. I have read every one of your posts on this and other similar threads.

 

These eminent folk will know their theory is just that until tested by modelling and full scale trials. As part of your work did you do any modelling of the behaviour of square flat hulls in very confined and irregular shaped channels of the correct roughness? Obviously you are now doing full scale trials.

 

I don't doubt that improvements could be made to the hydrodynamic capabilities of narrowboat hulls but I equally recognise there are reasons why no-one has ever thought it significant enough to pursue rigorously. My guess is simply you will ultimately reach the conclusion that finessing the hydronamics of the swims and stern gear is at best secondary to the limitations imposed by basic hull shape and channel characteristics.

 

It all seems a triumph of theory for a relatively unimportant issue. A little like me joining a model railway forum and berating the established members for failing to apply state of the art rail/wheel interface research and missing out on the improvements it would make to the rolling characteristics of their models.

 

JP

Didn't someone come on here some time back asking about the dimensions of canals as he was going to design an efficient hull, or did I dream that?

[Guest]

Canopus needs the engine winding up faster than the previous owner may have shown you how. This will give you a bit of oomph to help you with steerage.

It was incredibly frustrating trying to get him to manoeuvre around the dock as he wanted to tick over in and out, achieving nothing as the bottom was on the silt.

Sometimes you have to give it some welly.

 

I'd missed this, sorry Matty - you've hit one nail firmly on the head...

 

With a Morse controller it's both easy and quick to go full ahead or full astern - the speed wheel on the other hand is far from instinctive, especially when the amount of power on tap and the sheer momentum of the boat is intimidating to the uninitiated like myself.

 

She positively gallops forward like a puppy stung by a wasp and refuses to stop racing around in a headless manner in just about the same way!

 

However, I did learn that pulling back progressively harder and harder on the gear handle has absolutely no beneficial effect in stopping her whatsoever

Edited December 27, 2016 by dpaws

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I think it this is a good debate to be had because whilst in the UK you tend to get a good ticking off for doing something wrong but I expect our American friends may be inclined to see you in court.

 

 

 

Without trying to confuse the comparison you are trying to make between copyright and data protection (which by the way operate under totally different legislation)

your assumption about our 'American Cousins' is totally wrong.

 

The American system allows for 'fair usage' of ANY copyrighted material for educational usage, to be commented upon, criticised, or parody taken.

Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

 

In reality the only time that 'fair usage' is not 'allowed' is when the image is used for 'commercial purposes' or the user is getting remuneration.

[Guest]

The American system allows for 'fair usage' of ANY copyrighted material for educational usage, to be commented upon, criticised, or parody taken.

Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement. In reality the only time that 'fair usage' is not 'allowed' is when the image is used for 'commercial purposes' or the user is getting remuneration.

 

Well, I never thought I'd see the day when the American's appear more sensible than ourselves! The renumeration tallies with my own concept of profit.

 

May I appeal my new official forum warning point on the basis of "fair usage"? That warning point is a "defamation of character" you know... unreasonable force was used in the deletion of the thread and I've suffered anxiety and depression as a result that has hindered my ability to sleep, and sleep deprivation is against human rights legislation. I have a solid case to claim damages, unlike the offended party I feel...

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by dpaws

[Captain Pegg]

Didn't someone come on here some time back asking about the dimensions of canals as he was going to design an efficient hull, or did I dream that?

Yes and the forum couldn't give a definitive answer and that's part of the problem. I was asking if dpaws did anything with such information other than theoretical calculations.

[David Mack]

 

With a Morse controller it's both easy and quick to go full ahead or full astern - the speed wheel on the other hand is far from instinctive, especially when the amount of power on tap and the sheer momentum of the boat is intimidating to the uninitiated like myself.

 

 

A Morse may let you go quickly from ahead to astern, but you will be doing your gearbox no favours if you do that. You wouldn't put your car straight from forward gear to reverse!

 

Having separate gear and speed controls forces you to think ahead so you slow down then go from forward to reverse gear then wind the revs up again. Which is pretty much what you do in your car every day without thinking. Its no less intuitive than banging the morse lever back, it just needs to be learned, as you did when you learnt to drive a car.

[ditchcrawler]

 

Well, I never thought I'd see the day when the American's appear more sensible than ourselves! The renumeration tallies with my own concept of profit.

 

May I appeal my new official forum warning point on the basis of "fair usage"? That warning point is a "defamation of character" you know... unreasonable force was used in the deletion of the thread and I've suffered anxiety and depression as a result that has hindered my ability to sleep, and sleep deprivation is against human rights legislation. I have a solid case to claim damages, unlike the offended party I feel...

 

To make you feel better I have given you a greenie

Yes and the forum couldn't give a definitive answer and that's part of the problem. I was asking if dpaws did anything with such information other than theoretical calculations.

O it was himself who asked then? of have I got it wrong again.

[Leo No2]

But I haven't stolen them, they were in the public domain and still in the public domain so people can see them and even appreciate them beyond their initial potential audience. The only thing that's changed is a new IP address that allows access to them.

 

What does google images do? They reproduce domain photos for the convenience and broader access of the general public, how is that different?

 

How do I stand with my Mac which downloads a copy of an image as a file onto my hard-drive when I view it - is that taking a copy without the author's permission?

 

Surely you have to draw a line somewhere, and to me the logical place for that line would revolve around the concept of profit.

 

Do we have any lawyers or judges amongst us? How would a court rule in this specific case?

 

This is a very interesting and most enjoyable but long overdue debate

I think it is all quite complex - I am 'pleased' Alan has proved me wrong - I always understood (and in fact was told) the Americans were tougher than us on this aspect of things but I have been out of day-to-day working with data for over six years now. I am happy to stand corrected.

 

Why did I think Data Protection and Copyright go together - well because I think they are both about protecting Data (in all it's forms) but it seems the majority disagree........ I still find it difficult to dissociate the two.

 

Dpaws - not skirted round any questions on purpose - PM me if there is something I have missed.

 

I think this is a very important debate and I am kind of surprised no Moderators have contributed (maybe they have and I have missed their contributions) with their views or it could be they are holding a watching brief.

 

Personally I see no harm in providing a link to an image or text because the source can change but when it comes to reproducing images and perhaps text then I think the grounds become dangerous.

 

And how do Google, Facebook and the like deal with it - I expect they throw a lot of money at it and are subject (in the majority of cases) to American law which as Alan has pointed out is significantly different to UK law. Any data we used when I was working was subject to UK data protection laws no matter which country it was processed in - I expect that standard still applies.

[Guest]

Yes and the forum couldn't give a definitive answer and that's part of the problem. I was asking if dpaws did anything with such information other than theoretical calculations.

 

You're most welcome to view the aforementioned hull by following the link in my signature. It's a belter, I have received many compliments for the work from naval architects who earn a living doing the very same thing. It's not all of my own work, I've been surrounded and supported by some very talented people, but it is my own design. It'll handle very well indeed apparently

 

There seems to be a misconception that theoretical calculations are based on formulae plucked from thin air by dreamers.

 

They're not; the scientific community make a series of observations of real life situations and then try to explain what they've measured with mathematical formulae. That means that I don't have to drive a narrowboat for 20 years to know that a stern may squat by about 6" at cruising speed. People did all that driving years and years ago, someone else recorded it on a clipboard and then a chap like my father will have worked out the equation that allows an accurate calculation of the effect witnessed.

 

To the best of my knowledge all original working narrowboat hulls were designed in an office by a naval architect using theoretical formulae. I think their theoretical calculations have served our community well, where's the negative aspect the of another person trying some different calculations based on the same formulae?

 

They've got pretty good formulae these days that somewhat speeds up the process - http://cfdanalysis.com/

 

So when someone wants an electric powered narrowboat hull that goes further than all the others on the same set of batteries I'd be delighted to show them the way...

Edited December 27, 2016 by dpaws

[Guest]

Obviously you are now doing full scale trials.

 

Exactly, forum members convinced me that you can't model the canal and all it's irregularities so full scale is the way that will teach me about what's really significant and what isn't.

 

So far Canopus has proved my instincts to be correct, but it's very very early days as yet and I need much more time at the helm before I can minimise the negative effect of my own incompetence - I can't blame the hull profile for my tentative reluctance to spin the speedwheel... it'll come, with time...

Edited December 27, 2016 by dpaws

[Captain Pegg]

You're most welcome to view the aforementioned hull by following the link in my signature. It's a belter, I have received many compliments for the work from naval architects who earn a living doing the very same thing. It's not all of my own work, I've been surrounded and supported by some very talented people, but it is my own design. It'll handle very well indeed apparently

 

There seems to be a misconception that theoretical calculations are based on formulae plucked from thin air by dreamers.

 

They're not; the scientific community make a series of observations of real life situations and then try to explain what they've measured with mathematical formulae. That means that I don't have to drive a narrowboat for 20 years to know that a stern may squat by about 6" at cruising speed. People did all that driving years and years ago, someone else recorded it on a clipboard and then a chap like my father will have worked out the equation that allows an accurate calculation of the effect.

 

To the best of my knowledge all original working narrowboat hulls were designed in an office by a naval architect using theoretical formulae. I think their theoretical calculations have served our community well, where's the negative aspect the of another person trying some different calculations based on the same formulae?

 

When someone wants an electric powered narrowboat hull that goes further than all the others on the same set of batteries I'd be delighted to show them the way...

 

No misconception about that here. It's my own academic and professional background as well.

 

It's also the case that ideally no one would go into industrial scale production with nothing more than design calculations. I have also seen the problems that arise when there is a fixatation on one piece of the puzzle with a lack of understanding of how the whole system works or even what it is required to do.

 

As you say it's your boat and you can do what you like; it's just that from some of the language used (including on the now deleted opening post) it appears you may have a dim view of the engineering knowledge in the narrowboat world. My view is that the requirements of the user have historically over-ridden the finer details of hydrodynamics and that building a successful narrowboat isn't predominantly an engineering challenge. It seems to be that engineering challenge that you seek, which is of course your prerogative.

 

That said I think your last point is interesting because it is a game changer and put in those terms it could be significant. Good luck with that.

 

JP

 

ETA crossed posts with further reply above.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[alan_fincher]

What I don't get is why the possessors of photos of historical interest feel the need to keep them secret. How mean and selfish! Perhaps they have no other means to feel important?

 

Many people who have access to interesting images do make them available, but is it so unreasonable to expect that when you do the ownership of that image is acknowledged.

 

I know I have defended myself on this point many times before, but can't be bothered to go looking for the previous discussions.

 

If it vaguely interests anybody, the reasons I like to see my old photos credited to me has nothing at all to do with vanity or a feeling of self importance. It is because often they provoke someone else to produce their own relevant materials, or to come to me with stories related to what I have posted. On this basis I have had lots of contact from descendants of people who worked the boats we now own.

 

If my images are reproduced by someone, not credited to me, and in no way linked to me, there is no way that extended dialogue can ever take place.

 

I am also aware that images I have posted here and elsewhere have been hijacked and used without permission for commercial purposes. For example, a large canal-side housing development used a series of 1970s photos I had taken on the Regents Canal for the "history of this area" pages used to support their marketing campaign. At the time I was too overloaded with other things to go after them with a take down notice, but I most certainly should have done. What right have they to use other peoples material for free, and without credit?

[WotEver]

... a large canal-side housing development used a series of 1970s photos I had taken on the Regents Canal for the "history of this area" pages used to support their marketing campaign. At the time I was too overloaded with other things to go after them with a take down notice, but I most certainly should have done. What right have they to use other peoples material for free, and without credit?

That is completely unreasonable of the developers and entirely indefensible. I too would be outraged and insist on a cease and desist order.

 

However, I consider the above unauthorised, commercial use of images to be an entirely different scenario to an image used to support/explain/justify a post on a forum.

[nicknorman]

Many people who have access to interesting images do make them available, but is it so unreasonable to expect that when you do the ownership of that image is acknowledged.

 

I know I have defended myself on this point many times before, but can't be bothered to go looking for the previous discussions.

 

If it vaguely interests anybody, the reasons I like to see my old photos credited to me has nothing at all to do with vanity or a feeling of self importance. It is because often they provoke someone else to produce their own relevant materials, or to come to me with stories related to what I have posted. On this basis I have had lots of contact from descendants of people who worked the boats we now own.

 

If my images are reproduced by someone, not credited to me, and in no way linked to me, there is no way that extended dialogue can ever take place.

 

I am also aware that images I have posted here and elsewhere have been hijacked and used without permission for commercial purposes. For example, a large canal-side housing development used a series of 1970s photos I had taken on the Regents Canal for the "history of this area" pages used to support their marketing campaign. At the time I was too overloaded with other things to go after them with a take down notice, but I most certainly should have done. What right have they to use other peoples material for free, and without credit?

I don't have a problem with any of that. However none of it seems relevant to the issue in question. I didn't see the start of this thread so I may be wrong but as I understand it, a photo of the back end of a boat was posted, with its immediate origin being mentioned. As a result there was lots of deep end jumping which derailed the thread and resulted in the OP getting a warning point. Daft, silly, and over-reactive IMO. But not as the result of fault of any specific person, just a reflex similar to those who cite "Insurance" or "Health and Safety" when they feel uncomfortable about something but don't really understand the issue fully.

 

Sure, the source of re-posted photos should be acknowledged. Sure, folk shouldn't profit from reproducing your photos without permission. But that is not what happened here AIUI.

[Guest]

it's just that from some of the language used (including on the now deleted opening post) it appears you may have a dim view of the engineering knowledge in the narrowboat world.

 

You are absolutely right, I do, for the majority of it. Unfortunately when I've tried to highlight an example of incompetence the mods have taken down my threads - I guess because people don't like to see the truth.

 

 

(screenshot of a public domain photo with no published restriction on sharing. If you recognise the source please keep it out of view as I don't wish to lose the post through politics, and thus fail to illustrate the point I'm trying to make)

 

There are some very skilled fabricators on the cut, and the very occasional qualified naval architect. The majority though are building their own designs without fully understanding principles of hydrodynamics, in my opinion it's bonkers that they're allowed to get away with it.

 

An obvious example and a pet hate of mine - the installation of bow thrusters. The instructions for their correct positioning, tunnel profiling and grill profiling are widely available in the public domain and yet incompetence is commonplace and highly visible at Crick.

 

People falsely trust the abilities of the builders through no fault of their own. We're used to buying car models without questioning their compliance with safety requirements because we assume that someone has already done that. Could you name one builder on the cut whose own design complies with the small craft directive, ISO 12217 for a new build (that isn't a direct reproduction of a certified design, prepared and calculated previously by a naval architect)?

 

(My design does, by the way)

 

I think you're referring to my comment about the anode positioning being incompetent; my father doesn't mince his words, it is that bad in his very qualified opinion.

 

I explained why here though too - the purpose of the aft swim is to feed a smooth stream of water into the prop. How on earth can that be achieved with that anode of that size and profile in that position? At the very least it should be hung away from the hull to allow the boundary layers to pass beneath it undisturbed - or moved further away and streamlined accordingly so that the boundary layer disturbance is minimised and the flow has a chance to reattach itself to the swim's side before the prop. There's no need to place it there, original working boats don't.

Edited December 27, 2016 by dpaws

[alan_fincher]

As a result there was lots of deep end jumping which derailed the thread and resulted in the OP getting a warning point. Daft, silly, and over-reactive IMO.

 

Well I didn't know that.

 

I know we probably should not discuss moderator decisions, but I agree that appears over-reactive. (Unless, perhaps, there is a track record of someone being asked not to do it already, which has not been heeded - I can understand people doing this once with no bad intentions, but if they are then asked not to, IMO, they should stop doing it - I'm NOT suggesting that was the case here, though!)

 

There's no need to place it there, original working boats don't.

 

They couldn't have had them there, of course, because they did not have them at all!

[Guest]

 

They couldn't have had them there, of course, because they did not have them at all!

 

Ahhh my bad, sorry - I've seen Sculptor's which is a good example of a decent placement, as is your own previously posted example of FMC Empress

[David Mack]

 

 

To the best of my knowledge all original working narrowboat hulls were designed in an office by a naval architect using theoretical formulae.

 

That, I'm afraid, is another example of the shortcomings of the best of your knowledge.

 

Whilst some of the last working boats to be built were indeed drawn up by naval architects, the vast majority of working narrowboats built over the 180 years or so of carrying boats were designed by the local artisan boatbuilders who built them. They had no academic training and learnt by copying the predecessorss, modifying designs in the light of experience. Their designs were evolved from the local river and coastal craft, and so are part of a tradition of boatbuilding going back long before naval architecture as a discipline existed.

 

That the best naval-architect-designed carrying boats are so similar to those which went before suggests that the naval architects input may not have been very substantial.

Edited December 27, 2016 by David Mack

[Guest]

Fair comment, I'm far from being an historical expert. I thus doubt it will surprise you as it did me, but naval architects were writing papers about canal narrowboat boat design and associated hydrodynamics back in 1837, and that's some 179 years ago...

 

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/solitons/HISTORY_OF_EXPRESS_CANAL_BOATS.pdf

 

It mentions that narrowboat hull designs from the scientific community were circulated to builders back in 1833.

Edited December 27, 2016 by dpaws