Mr. Gibson's New Vessel May 1874 East Boston Advocate

Mr. Gibson's New Vessel¹

East Boston, May 11, 1874

Editor of Advocate

Dear Sir - Many things in this world have the appearance of being "Quixotic"; and perhaps that be the case in relation to the articles which have been in your columns on naval construction. Be that as it may, there is one thing certain, and that is, that sea-going vessels, as built are not adequate to meet and overcome the encounters for which they are designed. And if the articles alluded to have done nothing more they have opened the door of discussion and the fruits are visible in the vessel building for Mr. Gibson; and is a tacit admission of truths spoken in those articles. This vessel is at the present time, in this locality, the theme of general conversation, and opinions are offered in every hand. Opinion and judgment are just what those articles proposed to war against. Opinion is a false and fickle deity, merciless and unsparing; and the millions who have been crushed under its juggernaut wheels cry aloud and appeal to Science (the only true mechanical deity), for a change. Let the public turn its face like flint against opinion, and all its votaries. As I have remarked, opinion is the order of the day."

I heard a gentlemen say that Mr. Gibson expressed in his hearing, a desire to hear both sides - i.e. opinions for and against the mode of construction of his vessel. And further, the same person that Mr. Gibson gave it as his opinion that all of the blocks and shores, except those at her ends, could be removed without danger to the hull; also that if she was ashore on the sands of Cape Cod, she would last three times as long as any vessel now built, before going to pieces. This is not the kind of logic to establish the face of the value of this kind of construction; nor is it necessary that any such doubtful experiments be tried. If Mr. Gibson has built this vessel from scientific formula, which proves and demonstrates her strength, the best advertisement he could have would be to make it public. I propose to look a little further into the scientific principles involved in the construction, and to take the negative arguments and to afford the opportunity for the affirmative to rebut them if possible. I base my arguments mainly on the description given in your paper, and that is, tat she has no cross-frames or "timbers". The examination will be in sections, and compared with other fabrics. I will first take the bottom, and compare it with a floor or bridge. Suppose a bridge, or floor, to be constructed on this plan and bearing on its ends only, would it bear its own weight?  I know of no philosophic principle which would give it strength of stiffness to do so. On the contrary, science points out that it would be extremely weak. It could not bend without giving way. All who are familiar with bending of wood will readily comprehend that if a series of holes be bored in a piece to be bent that it would be split as soon as bending was commenced. It must be evident that there is no stability in this method of construction to sustain it as a floor, or bridge, without other foundation than under its ends. That being the case, it must be the same with a vessel's bottom; it can be both forced inward or outward. But the designers of this vessel may say that her "dead-rise" would in a measure prevent the inward; that would be a good argument if there were cross beams so secured as not to permit the hull to spread. But in the abscence of these, dead rise is a disadvantage instead of an advantage, inasmuch as load pressure beneath would have the effect to cause the hull to spread at the "floor head". Again, the inside incline would tend to produce central pressure from load, which with great strain might cause a separation of the parts. As I have remarked above, the weak point in this mode of construction is the ease with which the plank can splint, in consequence of the holes only four inches apart.

References: