Sail plan and
lines drawings of a Rahschlup drawn by Joachim
Möller, c. 1846 (Schiffahrtsmuseum
Rostock)
Introduction
On this page the reconstruction of a
single-masted coastal trader, a so-called Rahschlup,
that was specific to German Baltic coastal area of Pomerania is
described. As very little historical evidence remains, this will
be a long journey of research and then reconstruction as
waterline model in the 1/160 (N-scale). The process will be
documented in form of a building log, with the newest post on
top. The used historical information and other sources can be
accessed using the buttons on the bar below.
The
Model - A building log
The building log is
organised in that way, that the newest post will be on top for
easy monitoring of progress.
...
24.11.24 - Started to make chips - There was
still some re-drawing and re-lofting to be done, as I realised
that some parts
of the planned back-bone did interfere with each other and
cut-outs for the
deckshouses etc. were missing. I then did
a test-printout in order to detect any scale aberrations of my
laser-printer.
It turned out that the printouts were 0.5% too small, which was
corrected by
enlarging the drawing before printing accordingly. Then the
printout was spot
on with the desired dimensions.
The base
of
the construction will be a piece of 4 mm thick acrylic glass.
The printout was
stuck to the acrylic with a glue-stick and then crucial
intersections of lines
and boreholes punch-marked. The centre-lines for the slots into
which the
bulkheads will were scored along the centre with a scalpel. This
will help to
align the base for milling.
Layout for
the
backbone on
4 mm acrylic glass
Cutting out the
backbone on
the PROXXON
scrollsaw
Shaping the
backbone with the
micro disc-sander
Milling set-up
the slots for the
bulkheads
Milling the
slots for the
bulkheads
Set-up
for
milling the
slots for the
cant-frames
Milling the
slots for the
cant-frames
The back
bone with
the slots ready
to take up the
bulkheads
The
backbone was cut out with my PROXXON scrollsaw, but I am not
terribly good at
that, so I ended up quite far away from the line. However, the
micro
disc-sander that I build a few years ago from watchmakers lathe
part came to
good use here. Different diamond discs quickly and precisely
removed the
excess. The
backbone then was screwed down onto a batten that will allow to
safely hold the
model in a vice etc. during the building process. With the aid of
this
‘building board’ the backbone was mounted in a vice on the rotary
table of the
lathe. It was checked that the backbone was perfectly
perpendicular to the
cutting spindle in all directions. This necessary in order ensure
that the
slots have an equal depth everywhere. The bottom of the slots will
be the
vertical datum for the alignment of the bulkheads. Finally the
backbone was
aligned to the axes of the milling machine. All the
slots, with the exception of those for the cant-frames were milled
in the same
set up, which ensures that the slots are parallel to each other
and the slots
for the stem- and sternpost are at a right angle to the bulkhead.
For
milling
the slots for the can-frames the ‘building-board’ had to be
moved so that
centre, where the cant-frames would meet is roughly in the
centre of the
milling table. By turning the rotary table, the slots were
aligned to the
y-axis of the milling machine.
After removing the
paper template with warm water and some light deburring the
backbone is now
ready for the bulkheads.
31.10.24 - Just to keep the ball
rolling - Much time
was spent interpreting the original drawings and to prepare
drawings for the
actual building process. Luckily the spacing of the frames in the
body-plan was
such that it equalled the spacing of three frames of the prototype
and every
third frame would have been elongated to serve as bulwark
stanchion. This saved
a lot of real lofting, as the bulkheads just had to be copied and
the missing
details and reference lines needed to be added.
However,
cant-frames were not drawn and had to be lofted from the lines-
and body-plans.
The same for the longitudinal frames that support the transom
and the gilling.
As this
will be a waterline model, the hull will be constructed on a
base-plate. The
base-plate will be 4 mm Plexiglas into which 1 mm deep slots for
the bulkheads
and the stem- and sternpost pieces.
The size of
the drawing 190 mm
wide and 145 mm high
The drawings will be stuck
to 1 mm acrylic glass and
sawn out.
12.08.24
- The basis for the model reconstruction - The model will
not depict a specific ship, rather the reconstruction will be
for the ‘type’, based on a set of drawings by a Joachim Möller
(who was a builder in Rostock) dated to 1846 and preserved in
the archives of the Rostock Maritime
Museum (see top of the page). It is not known, to which
ship, as they were not named, nor was a client indicated on the
drawings.
They
follow the practice of the time and give line and body plans as
well as side elevation/longitudinal section and a sail-plan.
This allows to reconstruct much of the deck-layout and the
dimensioning of the visible woodwork. The sail-plan also
contains a table with the spar dimensions.
Much of the details of
the deck, the rigging and other fittings will have to be
reconstructed from contemporary paintings and photographs of
similar craft that survived into the late 19th or even into our
times.
A valuable
source of information are the books by FRIIS-PEDERSEN
(1980 and1983), and FUNCH (1833 and 1846). Interestingly,
the water-colours by Friis-Pedersen reproduced above show a
Rahschlup virtually identical to that of the plans by Joachim
Möller, but I doubt that Friis-Pedersen had access to these
drawings, which were located in the GDR at the time.
General information on
contemporary building practice in Germany can be found in KLAWITTER
(1835) and STEINHAUS
(1858), which bracket the time, when this Rahschlup was
designed. Masting and rigging details can be obtained from BOBRIK (1848), BIDDLECOMBE (1848), and STEINHAUS (1869).
The two Danish jagt measured by NIELSEN
(1973) give details on dimensions of scantlings and other parts,
which are useful for upscaling. One should also not forget the
detailed drawings of a Danish jagt in the ‘Souvenirs de la
Marine’ by Pâris.
Other more or less
contemporary (text)books on shipbuilding and rigging will be
also consulted, but with caution, as they typically reflect the
practice in larger ocean-going vessels. However, tables on spar
and rigging proportions are still useful.
11.08.24 - The beginning of a journey - The idea for the
project was conceived back in around 1980, when I became aware of
the 1934 book by SZYMANSKI
and the drawings therein. Unfortunately, the tracing of the
original builder’s plan for the purpose of the book was done very
summarily and all the usual details are missing. I could not
locate the original drawing, as it must have been in the
possession of the builder’s family at the time and is probably
lost now.
Lines and sail
plan of a Rahschlup, drawn in 1852
by H.P. Steffen, Lübeck (from SZYMANSKI,
1934)
Then in the later 1990s I discovered the drawings
by Joachim Möller in the archives of Rostock Maritime
Museum, who kindly provided me with copies. After a lot of
procrastination and detours I started the S.M.S.
WESPE project, which took much much longer than
anticipated. In between, I made several attempts to redraw the
lines for the purpose of model reconstruction. My oldest files
are still in ClarisWorks … As I am now trying to recuperate the
work I did several years ago, I found it somewhat difficult to
remember what I did at the time and what my intentions were for
construction.
The
drawings by Joachim Möller allow to take off a few key
dimensions, but it does not give the dimensions of the
scantlings. However, the measurements taken by NIELSEN
(1973) off the jagt CASTOR (1867) give a basis for
extrapolation. CASTOR was 48’ between the perpendicles, as
opposed to 64’ for the Rahschlup. It is not known, which foot
Möller used, it could have been the Mecklenburg or the
Rhineland-Prussian, which was in widespread use and is identical
to the Danish one at 314 mm. For convenience sake, I assumed
that it was that latter. Based on the (crude) assumption that
all parts are proportionally bigger in the bigger ship, I
developed a conversion table that shows the upscaled dimension
and the dimensions in the chosen 1/160 scale.
Conversion
table that calculates the scale dimensions for the
reconstruction
The construction will be plank-on-bulkhead for a waterline model.
Unlike for larger ships, the bulwark stanchions were not separate
members, but every second frame was extended up to the level of
the main rail. Such practice can be seen e.g. in KLAWITTER
(1835). In terms of model construction, this has the advantage,
that the hull shape up to the main rail can be easily defined. On
the other hand, the body plan does not give all the necessary
frame positions, which have to be lofted off the line plan.
Likewise, the cant-timbers in the bow that reach up to the rail
have to be lofted. Contrary to full-scale practice, I will also
introduce ‘cant-frames’ towards the stern to avoid excessive
fairing and bevelling and being able to use one thickness of
material
.
I did quite some lofting in my 2D CAD in the past and now have to
go through my older files in order to understand what I did some
years ago and how far I actually got. I tended to work on this
during vacations, when I had no access to the workshop.
The plan is to cut the bulkheads from 1 mm acrylic glass, which
then will be slotted into a solid baseplate of 3 mm acrylic. The
slots will be cut in the milling machine. The stem will also be 1
mm acrylic and its final thickness build up with outer layers of
styrene in order to be able to create a rabbet without the need to
mill it into the solid acrylic.
The rationale behind using acrylic glass
(Plexiglas) is, that it is isotropic, does not have grain, and
holds edges very well. In addition, this material was already in
my storage, while sourcing good-quality hardwood (e.g. boxwood)
in suitable dimensions is difficult, where I am. Also, Plexiglas
does not generate dust, when milled etc. and thus is more
friendly in a workshop that is one corner of my study.
That is how far the planning and the work have preceded to date.
Now back to the drawing-board – or rather the CAD.
*** The End of the Building Log ***
Historical overview
Research on German small coastal trading craft
and on this particular type of ship is rather difficult. All
physical evidence has long gone, as have the men who built and
sailed them. The German literature on commercial coastal craft
from the Baltic Sea is quite scarce. Really the only books of
some use are those written by SZYMANSKI
(1929,1934). He was able to travel much of the area post-WWI
to inspect pictorial evidence and collect narrative
recollections from people who witnessed the last few decades
of commercial coastal sail. Some of his tracings of builders'
plans he found at still extant shipyards and with private
individuals are now in the Deutsche Technikmuseum
Berlin, but what has not been in public collections
during WWII is now largely lost. The war and the lack of care
and interest by builders’ and ship owners’ descendants have
taken their toll.
Surprisingly there were very few serious
post-WWII maritime historians in both, Eastern and Western
Germany, as well as in Poland, to which now most of now
Pomerania belongs, who had an interest in commercial coastal
craft. Most historian until today have mainly either an
ethnological or an economic interest in the subject and
typically very little background in and understanding of
shipbuilding. To my knowledge there is no study on the complex
interaction between economic and societal developments,
resources available, and the technological development of the
various coastal ship-building traditions in the 18th and 19th
century. Wolfgang Rudolph is one of those exceptions, but he
was more interested in the smaller artisanal craft. In more
recent years Helmuth Olzsak measured and drew still extant
boats around the Mecklenburg and Pomeranian coast (OLZSAK, 2014), but he was neither a trained
naval engineer nor historian. On the Scandinavian side, both
the source availability and their modern evaluation is
slightly better.
Starting from a wide variety of Baltic craft, as
illustrated for instance by af CHAPMAN
(1768) for the middle of the 18th century, by the 2nd
Quarter of the 19th two types craft seem to have
dominated the group of single-masted vessels: the Jacht
(or jagt in Danish) and the Schlup (or slup in
Swedish and Norwegian). The Jacht was more prevalent
west of Rostock, i.e. in western Mecklenburg and
Schleswig-Holstein (as in Denmark), while the Schlup
occurred more frequently in eastern Mecklenburg and, indeed,
in Pomerania.
The Jacht
has two distinctive features, a very pronounced sheer (less so
in Danish vessels) and a pole-mast, the top of which has a
slight curvature forward. They had a flat, heart-shaped
transom and carried their rudder outboard. The sail plan
consisted of two foresails, a gaff mainsail with a square
gaff-topsail. They usually could also set a large square
foresail flying. These features were kept right to the end of
wooden ship-building at the Baltic coast.
The Schlup
followed more the fashion of deep-water ship-building of the
day. The mast always carried a top-mast. In the 19th century
they were built with little or no sheer and had square or
oval transom above the water, with a rudder inboard. The
sailplan was similar to that of the Jacht, put the gaff
mainsail was usually larger in proportion. She largely
resembled those trading craft that would be called a smack
in British waters.
There
was also one distinctive version of the Schlup that carried
a single full mast. As the name in German indicates, the Rahschlup
carried a heavier topmast with two topsails. This is a
rather lofty rig for a humble sailing coaster, resembling
the rig of the British naval cutters and the Swedish packets
(CHAPMAN, 1768) of the late 18th and
early 19th century. As their main area of occurrence was
Pomerania, which belonged to Sweden from the days of the
30-Year-War until the Vienna Congress in 1815, they may be
descendants of those Swedish packets that secured the
connection between Stralsund and southern Sweden.
Such rig required at half a dozen men or so to sail her
safely. To the contrary, a Jacht could be handled
comfortably by the master and a mate, or even only a boy
(cf. RUDOLPH, 1958, on crewing). By
the middle of the 19th century, such a rig appears rather
anachronistic and would have been quite uneconomic. However,
it would have had its advantages when working the coastal
lagoons (Bodden, Haff) of Pomerania (now partly in Poland)
and Eastern Prussia (now divided between Poland and the
Russian Federation), as well as the coast of Southern
Sweden. Dunes and rocks overgrown with shrubs and light
woods would blanket near-surface breezes.
Pictorial evidence from the middle of the 19th century
shows a fairly uniform arrangement of loose-footed gaff
mainsail (the gaff being considerably longer than the one on a
Jacht, which would also be curved), a square gaff-topsail set
flying on a light yard, and two (sometime a flying third one
is seen) headsails. Like on the foremast of a
topsail-schooner, there was a main yard below the trestle-tree
and two light yards running on the topmast and spreading two
topsails. A rather large square foresail could be bent to the
main yard. In the earlier days a full complement of lee-sails
may have been carried as shown on various ‘captain’s-paintings
and one or two rare photographs from Norway, where this rig
seems to have survived the longest.
The mast
was supported by three to four fully webbed shrouds and a
couple of backstays set on tackles. The topmast was supported
by shrouds to the trestle-trees only - apparently no backstays
were used. The mast also had the usual complement of stays
leading to the bowsprit and a fixed jibboom. Unlike to what was the fashion in deep-water sail
during the 1840s, the masts of the Rahschlup had virtually no
rake.
The Schlup ranged in length between 10 and 25 m with a
width of as much as 7 m and a depth of up to 3.5 m according to
SZYMANSKI
(1929, 1934). The Rahschlup naturally tended to be at the upper
end of the range. She was always built carvel with a medium
sharpness in the waterlines, a rising floor and usually some
tumblehome. The entrance was rather bluff (certainly above the
water), the run with some hollow. The sheer practically
disappeared from the second quarter of the 19th century onward
(as was indeed the fashion with larger seagoing vessels at that
time). The stem was slightly curved or straight with only a
little rake. The sternpost had considerable rake on top of which
sat a gilling and it was crowned by a transom that became
smaller over the time. The rudder ran inside and was nearly
always worked with a tiller.
Typically, the deck was flush, but could also have a
raised quarterdeck, as was usually the case for the Jacht. There
would have have been a small hatch before the mast and a larger
one after the mast. Small companionways provided access to the
crew's quarters between the small hatch and the spill and to the
main cabin in the stern respectively. A small portable caboose
lashed to the deck is often seen on paintings. The compass would
live together with its lights in a housing with sliding doors
lashed to the deck within convenient distance for the helmsman.
Davits over the transom were provided for
stowing the dinghy, which was, however, often towed. On some
Schlups a larger boat was stowed was stowed in chocks on the
main hatch behind the mast.
Mechanical devices to make heavy work easier were, of
course, an anchor spill in association with the post providing
the footing of bowsprit and a cargo winch behind the mast. The
anchor spill followed the technological development of the time
from its simple form with an eight-sided trunk to the more
sophisticated patent or pump-spills of the time. Also, the
simple wooden pumps would make room to the more efficient
cast-iron variety.
Concerning the colour-scheme, the Schlup
would largely follow the fashion of contemporary deep-water
sail (as opposed to the Jacht, which seems to
have been more conservative). The colour scheme developed from
scraped and oiled sides with black wales up to the early years
of the 19th century to one with several strakes in different
pale colours, such as pale blue, green or brown, and white,
while the whale remained usually scraped and oiled. In later
years the whole hull above the water was generally painted
black with white rubbing strakes and sometimes the wale still
scraped and oiled. Below the waterline coal-tar was sufficient
in most cases, as these ships normally would not leave the
Northern European waters.
The inside of the bulwarks often were painted in pale
green, pale blue or pale ochre before the middle of the 19th
century, when white generally became the preference.
Spars would have been either scraped and oiled in their entirety
or would have tops and ends in a colour matching the rest of the
ship, i.e. pale green, blue, ochre, or white.
As was mentioned earlier, their main area of
operation was the Baltic Sea, with journeys round Skagen to
harbours along the German, Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian and British
North Sea coasts. Some may have traded as far as the Mediterranean
(in which case they would have to be sheathed in copper or zinc),
bringing back fruit and wine in exchange for e.g. wheat
(Mecklenburg), hemp and pitch (Baltic states, Russia) or perhaps
salted herring. Bricks (‘Flensborg stone’) and masonry blocks
(from e.g. Bornholm, Gotland and Skane/Southern Sweden) might have
also been commodities of interest for areas, where either the raw
materials (clay) or the fuel (wood) to process them were lacking.
Those registered in
Schleswig or Holstein, however, would have carried the
Danebrog until 1864 and could have traded freely e.g. to the Danish
Westindies, now US Virgin Islands.
There
are, however, some sites that feature a Jacht, jagt (Danish),
jakt (Swedish) or slup (Norwegian, Swedish) under restauration.
The most interesting site was the one documenting the
restoration of the small Norvegian slup RUTH (1854, https://www.sluppenruth.dk),
however the many photos of the process seem to have disappeared
from their Web-site since I downloaded them five years ago. The
restoration project for the Danish Jagt 'JENSINE AF HADERSLEV' (https://www.jensine.dk)
from 1852 is also interesting, because the photographs show many
original details of such and the steps of reconstructing unsound
or missing parts. It should be noted that all these restorations
altered the original deck-layouts with a view to accommodate the
needs of cruising vessels and modern safety at sea requirements.
A replica of a Danish Jagt has been constructed at the museum shipyard of Flensburg on
the basis of the lines of the DE FIRE BRØDRE (1794), whose lines
are reproduced in NIELSEN (1973). Unfortunately, their Web-site
does not give any details on this project beyond the launch that
took place in 2009. Pictures of her construction can be seen here:
http://www.arbeitskreis-historischer-schiffbau.de/ontour/reise/flenswerft/flenswerft1.htm.
The
Altonaer
Museum in Hamburg has a fine collection of models of small
19th century merchant ships. These models were constructed in
1/24 scale between 1909 and 1912 from plans in the museum
collection and plans on loan from various shipyards of the
region (TIMMERMANN, 1974) by a boatbuilder, a
blockmaker and a sailmaker. While these models are not
contemporary to their prototypes, their builders were presumably
close enough to the time to have reproduced reasonably well the
then current practices of construction and rigging. Below are
detail pictures of the Schlup ELBE (1836).
Model of the
Schlup ELBE (1836) in
1/24 scale. Built by D. Behrens in Schulau (near
Hamburg) for Hans Oestmann.
She was 24 Commerzlasten/50RT big (Inv. Nr. AB
1813, Altonaer
Museum, Hamburg)
Over
the years more and more museum holdings in terms of drawings and
paintings have been digitised and made available through the
Internet, namely those of the (maritime) museums of Denmark,
Norway, and Sweden. This allowed to consult numerous paintings
of Norvegian and Swedish slups and Danish jagts.
As for graphical resources, most of the literature listed below
has become available as digital copies over the past 20 years,
which allows to consult even rather rare books remotely.
BIDDLECOMBE, G. (1848): The Art of
Rigging.- 155 p., Salem, Ma. (Reprint 1990 by Dover Publication,
New York).
BOBRIK, E. (1846): Handbuch der praktischen
Seefahrtskunde.- Vol. 1-7: 2688 p., 50 pl. Zürich/Hamburg (Julius
Fröbel & Co./Hoffman & Campe).
CHAPMAN,
H. AF (1768): Architectura Navalis Mercatoria.- 103 pp., Rostock
(Reprint 1968 at VEB Verlag Hinstorff).
FLEISCHFRESSER,
K., HOFFMANN, R. (1975): Segler von Haff
und Bodden. Pommersche Küstenschiffahrt.- 96 pp.,
Hamburg-Norderstedt (Verlag Egon Heinemann).
[FRIIS-PEDERSEN, J.] (1980): Sejlskibe - Danskbyggede
traeskibbe opmålt, tegnet og fotograferet.- Handels- og
Søfahrtsmuseets på Kronborg Søhistoriske Skrifter IX: 107 pp.,
København (Høst & Søn).
[FRIIS-PEDERSEN, J.] (1983): Sejlskibe - Nordiske
fartøjer opmålt, tegnet og fotograferet.- Handels- og
Søfahrtsmuseets på Kronborg Søhistoriske Skrifter XI: 96 pp.,
København (Høst & Søn).
FUNCH,
D.H. (1833-34): Praktisk Skibbyggerie. Et Forsøg.- 76 folding
lithographed plates, including 28 in full color & many
others tinted or heightened in color. 76 pp., 1 leaf of errata;
64 pp.; 223, [4] pp., 1 leaf of errata. Three parts in one vol.,
Kjøbenhavn (Luno & Schneider).
FUNCH,
D.H. (1843): Afhandlig af coffardiskibets constructionen. Et
Forsøg.- 2 bd. (6) + 74 + (2) +92 pp., 17 fold. plancher, 9
tabeller og 3 blade med forklarende tekst, Kjøbenhavn (trykt paa
Forfatterens Forlag).
FUNCH,
D.H. (1846): Dansk Marine-Ordbog, 1ste Part.- 170 pp. + 67 Pl.,
Kjøbenhavn (Forfatterens Forlag, reprint 1976 by Høst & Søn,
Copenhagen).
GØTHCHE,
M. (1980): Sluppen Ruth – rapport om restaurering af
Nationalmuseets slup..- Maritim Kontakt, 1: 59-77,
København.
KLAWITTER,
K.G. (1835): Vorlegeblätter für Schiff-Bauer für die Königlichen
Schiffbau-Schulen.- 40 pp., Berlin (Petsch, reprint 1978 by H.
Hamecher, Kassel).
MONRAD
MØLLER, A. (1988): Jagt og skonnert. Studier i
den danske provinssøfart i tiden fra 1814 til 1864.- 273 p.,
København (Forlaget Falcon).
NIELSEN,
C. (1973): Danske Bådtyper.- 152 pp., København (Høst and Søns
Forlag).
RUDOLPH,
W. (1958): Die letzten hölzernen Frachtfahrzeuge der kleinen
Küstenfahrt auf Rügen (m. Pers.-Literaturangaben u. Abb.).-
Balt. Stud., NF, 45: 137-43.
RUDOLPH,
W. (1958): Die Schiffstypen der ländlichen Frachtschiffahrt in
den Gewässern der Insel Rügen.- Dt. Jb. f. Volksk., IV: , Berlin
(Ost).
RUDOLPH,
W. (1962): Rügischer Schiffbau auf den Werften zu Seedorf.-
Greifswald-Stralsunder Jb.: ?.
RUDOLPH,
W. (1966): Handbuch der volkstümlichen Boote im östlichen
Niederdeutsch-land.- 150 pp., Berlin (Akademie Verlag).
RUDOLPH,
W. (1969): Segelboote der deutschen Ostseeküste.- 145 pp., Berlin
(Akademie Verlag).
STEINHAUS, C.F. (1858): Die Schiffbaukunst
in ihrem ganzen Umfange – I. Theil: Die Theorie der
Schiffbaukunst, II. Theil: Die Schiffbaukunst in der Praktik.-
158+170 pp. + 4 Tafeln, Hamburg (P. Salomon & Co., reprint
1977 by Horst Hamecher, Kassel).
STEINHAUS,
C.F. (1869): Die Construction und Bemastung der Segelschiffe.-
137 pp., Hamburg (L. Friedrichsen & Co., reprint 1977 by
Horst Hamecher, Kassel).
SZYMANSKI,
H. (1929): Zur Geschichte der schleswig-holsteinischen Jachten
im 19. Jahrhundert.- Der Kleinschiffbau – Z. f. Gebrauchs- u.
Sportfahrzeuge aller Art, ?: 209f., Berlin.
SZYMANSKI,
H. (1929): Die Segelschiffe der deutschen Kleinschiffahrt.-
Pfingstblätter des Hansischen Geschischtsvereins, Bl. XX, 81+XXI
pp., Hamburg.
SZYMANSKI,
H. (1934): Deutsche Segelschiffe.- Veröff. Inst. f. Meereskunde,
N.F. B, H. 10: 167 pp. + 92 Taf., Berlin.
TIMMERMANN,
G. (1974): Das Schiffbauhandwerk.- Schausammlungen des Altonaer
Museums, H. 1: 93 p., Hamburg (Altonaer Museum).
Contact:
webmaster at maritima-et-mechanika dot org
