I can see better now where your confusion has set in, at last once again.

Nice, can't wait to hear what happens in a sea way couple 1,000 miles away from shore. Just a popped bulkhead maybe they got lucky this time.

Does your boat float when filled to interior capacity with water?

I ask for the general thickness from the beam you presented After I gave an example of a 17' hollow fiberglass 8''x8'' beam with a 1/2 '' wall thickness.

Multiple thickness lay ups wooo whoooo whats new! like its a holy grail or something when you could have just generalized...

Todd

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:27 AM, tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:
>
> > Center of gravity and buoyancy. The more I can keep it that way the >more it will resist heeling.
>
> This is meaningless.
>
> >Buoyancy along with a light weight craft the beams could be over built >and still not effect the the intended use of design.
>
> The discussion was about harrys vs Atlantics and one mast vs two.  The
> harry beams will always be lighter.
>
> >
> > Assume just one force to prove one point doesn't make sense.
>
> Maybe, but unless and until you grasp this point, further discussion
> is not going to achieve anything.
> >
> > So for your beams , your saying due to having a ww60/40lw displacement and having an unstayed mast your beams can be built lighter than a pacific or atlantic type using the same construction method being engineered for the specific use on each craft.
>
> Assuming the mast is mounted in a hull, the overall boat weights are
> the same and it is a responsible design, the beams on a 60/40 proa
> will be the same as the beams on a 40/60 proa. They will be heavier
> than the beams on a 50/50 and lighter than the beams on a 70/30, a
> 30/70, a 20/80 or an 80/20, etc etc. The upper limit is if the
> windward hull is so small that it is submerged before the boat
> capsizes.
> >
> > You want me to pay 500.$ for what?
>
> I don't want you to pay for anything. You asked for the laminate of
> my beams. I told you it would cost you $500.
>
> rob
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand your final paragraph. Or see what it or the video has to
> > > do with this discussion. No idea what walla is, nor how it proves that
> > > buoyancy to leeward of the mast makes a boat more stable, apart from the
> > > added righting moment from the mast weight. Assuming the force on the sail
> > > acts horizontally through the coe (and ignoring the rig weight), it makes no
> > > difference to the force required to fly a hull where the mast is located
> > > across the boat. Maybe your rig is a greater component of the righting
> > > moment than it would be on a full size boat? Again, draw a picture (or try
> > > to unbalance a chair by pushing or pulling it sideways) and this will be
> > > obvious.
> >
> >
>