The navigator© wrote:

When you lose a bet you are supposed to pay Doug.

So, you understand this? Why did you make a bet with no intention of paying?


Since you do not even
have a clue about the limits of stability for that design

Let's review.

1- you claim a stability limit of 45 degrees based on ???

2- you claim the boat would be dismasted based on ???

3- You dismiss the fact that the Micros capsize screen is lower (ie better) than your pick

4- the boat you picked is substantially larger anyway

5- about the only thing you can say to back up your claims are "bwahahaha" and "when are you
going to pay up."

I didn't think there was a lower form of life than the Crapton, but maybe you are determined to
seek that level?

... Bolger Micro
does not have a higher limit of stability than any other craft...

That is not what I claimed, and was not the bet.

Judging by your reading skills, this vast knowledge of yacht design based on your extensive
reading, hasn't proven to be worth very much.

Now shall I send a marshall to claim title to the boat you claim you own?

DSK

DSK wrote:


That is not what I claimed, and was not the bet.


Let me repost your bet:

"I bet anything you care to name that they have a higher LPOS that
anything else in their size range."

The bolger micro does not have an LPOS of 180 degrees so you loose! I
can draw you a vessel right now that has an LPS of 180 and the same
length so YOU LOOSE. FYI a box section CANNOT have an LPS of 180
degrees. It's a common first year naval architecture problem (since lots
of RORO's have near perfect box sections). Pay up!!!!!!!!!

Cheers MC

The navigator© wrote:


Let me repost your bet:

"I bet anything you care to name that they have a higher LPOS that
anything else in their size range."

So far you have not listed any boat in that size range.



The bolger micro does not have an LPOS of 180 degrees so you loose!

Wrong.

I
can draw you a vessel right now that has an LPS of 180 and the same
length so YOU LOOSE.

But that is not an existing vessel, so no... I don't lose. Pay up.


FYI a box section CANNOT have an LPS of 180
degrees.

Sure it can. If it has a ballast keel below and bouyant spars above, then it
will darn sure like to sit right side up better than upside down.

It's a common first year naval architecture problem (since lots
of RORO's have near perfect box sections).

Uh huh. And how many ROROs have ballast keels and bouyant masts?

I am still waiting your explanation of why, in this one particular case, the
capsize screen has no bearing on LPOS. In all other cases, it is an
excellent way of determining the relative LPOS of similar vessels.


Pay up!!!!!!!!!

Is it a quaint NZ custom that the winner pays a bet? Sorry, it doesn't work
that way over here.

DSK

What part of the word ANYTHING do you not understand Doug? I told you
that I can draw you a vessel with an LPS of 180 degrees which is much
more than the Micro. Since that drawing will describe a vessel it must
be included in the description ANYTHING. Now PAY UP or be known as a
liar and cheat! I could also give you a long list of pocket cruisers
that have been built with very high LPS (and more than any Micro) but
that won't be needed since you've lost already.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


Let me repost your bet:

"I bet anything you care to name that they have a higher LPOS that
anything else in their size range."


So far you have not listed any boat in that size range.



The bolger micro does not have an LPOS of 180 degrees so you loose!


Wrong.


I
can draw you a vessel right now that has an LPS of 180 and the same
length so YOU LOOSE.


But that is not an existing vessel, so no... I don't lose. Pay up.



FYI a box section CANNOT have an LPS of 180
degrees.


Sure it can. If it has a ballast keel below and bouyant spars above, then it
will darn sure like to sit right side up better than upside down.


It's a common first year naval architecture problem (since lots
of RORO's have near perfect box sections).


Uh huh. And how many ROROs have ballast keels and bouyant masts?

I am still waiting your explanation of why, in this one particular case, the
capsize screen has no bearing on LPOS. In all other cases, it is an
excellent way of determining the relative LPOS of similar vessels.



Pay up!!!!!!!!!


Is it a quaint NZ custom that the winner pays a bet? Sorry, it doesn't work
that way over here.

DSK

I told you
that I can draw you a vessel with an LPS of 180 degrees

Crayons or Etch A Sketch?

Bwahahahaha! You couldn't draw a bath!

RB

Wanna bet? How much?

Cheers MC

Bobsprit wrote:

I told you
that I can draw you a vessel with an LPS of 180 degrees

Crayons or Etch A Sketch?

Bwahahahaha! You couldn't draw a bath!

RB

Wanna bet? How much?

Sorry I'm tapped out from buying fenders for my deck.

RB

The navigator© wrote:

What part of the word ANYTHING do you not understand Doug?

I understand that, as usual, you are bluffing and blustering. You threaten to
write to Phil Bolger to get his figures, but do not. You claim figures but cannot
back them up. You insist that you are right against all evidence to the contrary.
You change the terms.

It is rather sad, when this discussion could have been instructive.

I suppose that NZ$10,000 isn't worth the effort to collect anyway.

DSK

I've already estimated the LPS for the micro. It's a trivial problem
from the published displacement and ballast and cross section. If I post
an email to Bolger and friends and they confirm the veracity of my
estimate (which is 180 degrees) will you pay up?

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


What part of the word ANYTHING do you not understand Doug?


I understand that, as usual, you are bluffing and blustering. You threaten to
write to Phil Bolger to get his figures, but do not. You claim figures but cannot
back them up. You insist that you are right against all evidence to the contrary.
You change the terms.

It is rather sad, when this discussion could have been instructive.

I suppose that NZ$10,000 isn't worth the effort to collect anyway.

DSK

The navigator© wrote:

I've already estimated the LPS for the micro. It's a trivial problem
from the published displacement and ballast and cross section.

No, you went on with a lot of blather and bwahaha. AFAIK you didn't make any sort of
estimate other than to hurl a lot of insults and yabble about RORO ships.

BTW there are two ballast configurations for the Micro. One is to let the deadwood void
fill with water, which IIRC is the figure you named. The other is to fill the same void
with cement which would result in the figure I named. So, perhaps you should revise
your "estimated LPOS" to exclude things like the lowest possible figure and assumptions
of dismasting.


If I post
an email to Bolger and friends and they confirm the veracity of my
estimate (which is 180 degrees) will you pay up?

No, that was not the terms of the bet. You have to demonstrate that at least one
existing crauising sailboat in the same size range (15' LOA and/or 850kg DISP) has a
higher LPOS.

HINT: Finding one with a lower capsize screen would be one way to start.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King