Roger ,,, on and on you go. Always the same theme. You know everything
and anybody who disagrees is not a sailor but a "putterer".

"Nothing reveals the ignorance and lack of sea sense of armchair coastal
putterers more than the posts that Barnes must have been a poor sailor
simply because he lost his boat in the great southern ocean. There are few
simple and sweeping statements you can make about the sea. About the
closest is this, if you get your sailboat into conditions where large waves
are breaking due to bottom effect you are in deep, deep ****, man. "

Why don't you for once just admit you don't have any idea what happened to
Ken Barnes and his boat.
What we do know is this: he set out to sail around the world. He was in a
very well constructed boat.
Somehow, his well constructed boat got damaged, it did not sink. Mr Barnes
decided to leave his well constructed
boat and the boat is now sunk.

These are the facts.

Calling people "putterers" because they might have a different opinion from
yours, cheapens the value of your conjecture.

I fancy the word putterer. In fact, I like it. Until I am able to sail off
for 6 months at a stretch, and experience all that the ocean has to offer on
a small sailboat; being a putterer is fine with me.

Captain "Putterer" .. and proud of it.





"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

"Gordon" wrote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvP3DWi7_k

This is a good one

This is a one of the best examples of shallow water roll over dynamics
that I've seen and is similar to what Ken Barnes was describing in the
clips I saw. There are some differences however.

This incident happened in shallow water where the waves are feeling the
bottom so that the lower part is being slowed down while the breaking
crest continues at higher speed. If you look closely, you can see the
impulse and snap as the keel, entrained in the slower moving water, trips
the boat as tons of impact push on the topsides. If the boat had been end
on, lower resistance of the keel, greater longitudinal stability, and less
topside area to be acted on might have let the boat remain upright and
only be swept. There still would have been tremendous force on the
companionway. It looks as though it was open and the boat probably would
have taken on a lot more water if pooped. She probably would have kept
her rig though which would have been important if far from rescue. Easier
to bail than re-rig.

It doesn't appear as if the wave was the 20 feet quoted. Looking at the
size of the crest and the boat makes it hard to believe how any boat could
survive tthe open ocean. However, waves break differently in deep water.
Without the bottom effect, there is less difference in velocity between
top and bottom. Waves combine until too high and steep to retain their
shape. Aided by the wind, the tops collapse. There still can be huge
forces but they are more vertical. This means that the wave crest has to
be larger, large enough for the weight of water above the boat to develope
sufficient force or for the boat to fall off the face. The probability of
capsize is orders of magnitude less or no one would be sailing deepwater
in small boats.

What this vidio illustrates beautifully is the extreme danger posed by
waves that are feeling the bottom. Anytime there is a big sea running and
you are in water less than twice the depth of the average wave height,
this could easily happen to you. Attempting to seek shelter through
channels bounded by shallow water while tired and scared is a perfect set
up for this kind of accident.

Whether in shallow water or deep, the vessel faces the same dilemma.
Staying end on to the seas reduces capsize risk. Speed may allow the boat
to surf ahead of the crest or maneuver to avoid the worst part. Both
however, increase the risk of plunging the bow into the back of the wave
ahead where the surface water is moving in the reverse direction. The
forward moving water of the following wave surface can be fast enough to
momentarily slow flow over the rudder enough to eliminate steering
effectiveness. Broaching into the trough of a wave in front of a
collapsing crest is av good set up for a roll over. A smaller boat may do
better in a some waves because it is too slow and short for the bow to
reach the trough before the wave passes. However, the smaller boat will
experience the same dangerous dynamics in smaller waves that it is more
likely to encounter.

Statistics and probability factor into all of this in a major way. For
every set of wave conditions and even for each individual wave, there is
an optimum speed and course. Survival is maximized by having fresh, alert,
and skilled helmsmen that can constantly adjust. Fatigue eventually
forces the single hander or small crew to simply let the boat sail itself
or, in extreme conditions, lie a hull. It's then like sleeping in the
middle of a shipping lane. You may get run over and you may not.

From what I can descern of Ken Barnes' experience, it may not have been
sufficient to have maximized his chances of having just the right sail
plan, speed, and attitude for the conditions. This doesn't mean that the
accident happend because he wasn't up to the task. He could have been the
most experienced roaring 40's sailor on the planet at optimum speed and
still been hit by a wave running just enough differently from the rest to
catch the boat wrong. Someone could also do just about everything wrong
and still luck out. Ultimately, this is high stakes gambling. You can do
a lot to improve your odds but there are no guarantees on the outcome.

Nothing reveals the ignorance and lack of sea sense of armchair coastal
putterers more than the posts that Barnes must have been a poor sailor
simply because he lost his boat in the great southern ocean. There are
few simple and sweeping statements you can make about the sea. About the
closest is this, if you get your sailboat into conditions where large
waves are breaking due to bottom effect you are in deep, deep ****, man.