.

Using AI to design a mast.

  • 17 Sep 2026 06:01
    Reply # 13700487 on 13699496

    I completely share the sentiments you have expressed which absolutely accord with my own experiences of my dealings with my new found friend A.I. I was initially charmed by its flattery which encouraged me to believe I was not such a dunderhead but gradually when information it provided was so clearly out of date, or  plain incorrect I realised this was no panacea for the human race.


    I cannot deny that it has been of extraordinary patient help in guiding me through the finally successful desktop ‘set up’   of linking a complex ( to me ) NMEA network, raspberry pi and Open CPN  plus displays. 


    We did go down a lot of rabbit holes and I even got quite irritated and made my feelings clear! A clear indication of the danger of this charming friend slipping into your life.


    So from my experience writing code into a terminal window,  a task otherwise quite beyond me. Brilliant!  Whether I would be happy sailing in a bit of a blow under  my new  mast designed with no human input,  I I  am not so sure, and anyway who could you blame if it all went wrong.




  • 16 Sep 2026 22:51
    Reply # 13699719 on 13699496
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    There are two matters the I would like to comment on, not as an expert or even  an experienced person when it comes to designing masts. I have been more a believer in looking at what others have successfully done and reported, and use that as a basis rather than design from first principles. (With enormous gratitude to our clever and generous pioneers of the modern Western junk rig).

    Consider these two comments merely the raising of questions, nothing more.

    The first relates to the use of A.I. I have no background knowledge in this area, merely learning the hard way how incredibly useful it can be, and how pitifully deceptive it can be if you allow it to take control of the project. I have been in a dialogue with Chatgpt for many hours each day for about two or three months on end now, in trying to build a web-based system (a different sort of project, but same principles I think) which is fairly well outside my technical knowledge. Here is what I have learned:

    A.I. is not particularly intelligent. It is trained, and in possession of vast amounts of data, but at times it can display appalling ignorance and stupidity.  At first, I thought it was brilliant and all-knowing. I would describe it now as an idiot savant. You can make good use of its incredible ability, but beware. It is sycophantic, verbose and plausible, each in the extreme, and trained to be that way. If it gets the slightest hint of what direction you want to go in, it will lead you in that direction with a careless optimism that is hard to resist. It will go down every useless rabbit hole until it gets a hint of what you want to be told. You can get it to do the calculations, or coding (in split seconds) and produce voluminous reports reflecting your own ideas. As a critic, it is poor; sycophantic agreement is more its style. It is a donkey in need of a bridle. You can get it to do the hard yards, but you have to be the engineer. It can be lazy and forgetful. It will never say “I don’t know” unless absolutely driven to it – otherwise, it is merely plausible, especially when outside of its knowledge (training) domain. (Ask it to draw a picture of a split junk rig!) You can get a lot from it, but must maintain a healthy scepticism and at all times beware: it is trained to tell you what it “thinks” you want to hear, in the most shamefully plausible fashion. (The disastrous A.I.-driven targeteering by the US Military forces, which resulted in the double-tap destruction of a school for little girls in Iran on 28 February 2026, is a glaring example of the dangers of relying, irresponsibly, on inadequately supervised use of A.I.).

    My suggestion is that once you have done all the calculations, and designed your mast from first principles, be sure to look at and compare with what others have already done successfully, with masting a vessel of similar characteristics to your own.

    The other point is a matter of curiosity. I have never understood why mast designers begin and end by consideration of righting moment. I would have thought it obvious that a mast must sustain the righting moment, but I would have thought also that this steady force is actually the least of the design considerations. A mast must withstand great dynamic forces, the shock of a sudden knockdown, for example, if the vessel does not yield quickly enough. Even more important, it must withstand the shock of coming to a near sudden stop when running down wind, full speed, under full sail. The forces involved in a pitchpole (or the onset of one) must surely be greatest that a mast must withstand. The forces on a mast in the fore and aft direction must, therefore, surely be much greater than the more gentle sideways force of being hove down by wind from the beam?  I suppose this is all taken into account by the use of hefty fudge factors, but it seems to me to be a very indirect approach, and not really all that much to the point. But I don’t claim to know much about designing from first principles.

    Andrew, I would say do both - a deep dive into AI is interesting, revealing - and an important thing to learn about in today's world - about as important in the near future as being internet savvy is today - whether we like it or not. But do contact other JRA members who have successfully converted a similar vessel, and never underestimate your gut feeling after having done that.
    Last modified: 16 Sep 2026 23:31 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 16 Sep 2026 21:10
    Message # 13699496

    I've realised that my maths simply isn't up to the job of designing my mast. Mainly because in secondary school, back in the 60s we were taught Southampton Maths Project which meant we were forbidden to do conventional trig, calculus etc. Instead, we did matrices, vectors and I can count fluently in hexadecimal and binary.

    So, although AI is going to kill us all within ten years I thought I would give it the task of potential mast design for my Sabre 27.

    The problem I have now is that it is already at 44 pages and not quite finished. It looks very impressive and believable but how on earth can I check if it's telling the truth?

    The other option is copying another design and generous helpings of gut feeling. Which would be the better option?

    I'll put the file here in case anyone's interested in dipping in (you wouldn't want to read the whole thing).

    As I say, it looks impressive but what do I know?


    1 file
       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software