over the nee, you be a stew pid as jeffies.

go ahead. TRY to back that thing up.

BG Jeff, you still wasting time on that imbecile? The odds on him
knowing anything about real world boat handling fall into the "minuscule
to none" category.

otn


Jeff Morris wrote:
You're absolutely wrong about this jaxie. Feynman would think you're a
complete
fool for invoking his "sprinkler paradox" in this case. The boat is not
turned
directly by the propeller, it is turned because a water flow is pressing
against
the rudder. "Push" and "pull" are irrelevant, and the water flow could
even
come from a current, or the wash from another boat. For a variety of
reasons,
the affect is far more powerful in foreword, but it is still there in
reverse.

USSailing, and Boat/US both describe this on their websites.
http://www.videos.sailingcourse.com/...pring_line.htm
http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/swlines.asp
And the Coast Guard
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/cgaux/Pub...crew/ch10d.pdf



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

wayne, you are out of your league.

*push* is required under the laws of physics. If you can't see that, just

take

Feynman's word for it.


It is a fact of physics that
you can NOT control using rudder by *pulling* water over it. you MUST

push.

===================

Absolutely not true.

If there is water moving past the rudder, regardless of direction or
cause, it can be used to create a directed thrust simply by angling
the rudder away from the flow direction.

The confusion arises because the prop in forward pushes a large flow
across the rudder, whereas the prop in reverse pulls only a relatively
small amount of water across the rudder. Small, but not zero.

You don't need a degree in physics to understand this, just a little
common sense. Richard Feynman would no doubt find the discussion
amusing however.