BoatBanter.com - Best entry level pocket cruiser

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - Best entry level pocket cruiser (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/18581-best-entry-level-pocket-cruiser.html)

Best entry level pocket cruiser

Donals Dilemma wrote:

AwwwDoug, at the rate the $US is falling, I'd keep it in mind.

Perhaps I should request payment in sheep?

DSK

Best entry level pocket cruiser

DSK wrote:

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.

Is english your second language? I never said I posted the estimate. I'm
just waiting to see if my estimate agrees with that of Bolger. BUT it's
not 180 degeees Dog and that is why you've lost.

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.

Nope. Let the deadwood fill with water would not seem to agree with the
idea of casting metal would it?

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.

Even then it's not 180 degrees. LPOS does not include buoyancy of the
rig as -I said. Look it up before you disagree this time?

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.

No, that is not the terms of the bet and the bet is quite clear. I just
have to show something that will have a higher LPS in that size range.
Remember ANYTHING includes boat designs. So I don't have to find an
existing boat but just simply specify a boat that has a higher LPS. (I'm
sure there there are many boats that will have a LPS higher than that of
the micro and I suspect that some have will have been used to cross the
Atlantic. But there is no need to discuss them.) I've told you I will
show you and this group a simple design that has a 180 degree LPS and
since the Bolger LPS is less than this I win. It's as simple as that.
What you've not done is state terms on which you will pay up. I've
offered to contact authorities and Bolger and Friends Inc. but you
haven't taken that offer up. I think it's pretty clear that no matter
what offers of proof I give you will not honour your bet but choose to
besmirch me with lies. Tell you what, as you probably don't have $10,000
in your bank acoounbt, if you apologize nicely I'll let you off it.

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

Capsize screens do not not predict LPS and at best suggest initial
stability. A very simple shape with ballast has a 180 LPS and no
existing Bolger design can beat that. You can even make a model of it
and a bolger micro to try in your bath tonight to proove it to yourself
but I'll not reveal my design until you post the terms on which you will
honour your debt. So, either apologize or tell me if you will accept
expert adjudication. When you've agrred to these terms we will both send
money order to an impartial third party who will assess my calculations,
and communications from Bolger and Friends and then send the winner the
cheques. OK?

Cheers MC

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Best entry level pocket cruiser

The navigator© wrote:

.... I'm
just waiting to see if my estimate agrees with that of Bolger.

Seems to me that Phil Bolger would have more than an "estimate." It's very likely that at
least one person has done static tests on their boats.

BUT it's
not 180 degeees Dog and that is why you've lost.

Even if the Micro's stability is not 180 degrees, I have not lost anything. Did you find
something?

.. LPOS does not include buoyancy of the
rig as -I said.

The official calculation does not. However, it is not intended to be applied to homebuilt 15
footers. As a matter of strict practicality, the range of positive stability very much
includes the rig and the cabin trunk and deck camber and a number of other things that are
off the official balance sheet.

.... I just
have to show something that will have a higher LPS in that size range.
Remember ANYTHING includes boat designs. So I don't have to find an
existing boat but just simply specify a boat that has a higher LPS.

If the boat doesn't exist, then you'll have to built it and prove it doesn't have a higher
LPOS. Meanwhile I suppose I could go to the trouble of building a Micro and setting it up to
demonstrate 180 degree positive stability. It would probably cost less than your design, but
then that wasn't the bet.

The bet was that you could not name a boat in the same size range (by LOA or disp) that had a
higher LPOS. You have not done so, nor made a serious attempt. In fact your red herring about
designing your own boat to win the bet is pretty much an admission that you don't think such
a boat currently exists.

Therefor, you have lost.

DSK

Best entry level pocket cruiser

The navigator© wrote:

Capsize screens do not not predict LPS and at best suggest initial
stability.

Totally wrong. The capsize screen actually is inversely proportional to simple indication of
initial stability.

Beam / (displacement / 64)0,33
So increased beam, ie greater initial stability, increases the capsize screen number and thus
indicates a lower LPOS.

You don't know a freakin' thing about boat design, do you?

Perhaps if you don't believe me, you might believe John Rousmaniere.
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...leid=sailne005

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Best entry level pocket cruiser

DSK wrote:

The bet was that you could not name a boat in the same size range (by LOA or disp) that had a
higher LPOS. You have not done so, nor made a serious attempt. In fact your red herring about
designing your own boat to win the bet is pretty much an admission that you don't think such
a boat currently exists.

The bet was ANYTHING and that must include a design -by definition. I'll
also give another wager that LPS has not been measured in a micro built
to Bolger specifictaions so you'll just have to accept calculations from
Bolger and Friends won't you? In any case you have now revealed that you
have NO idea what the LPS might be and since I've a design with a 180
degree LPS you've still lost (and shown the world you were BSing with
the 180 figure).

So will you send a money order to a third party or apologise?

Cheers MC

Best entry level pocket cruiser

English is not your language? Let me help you with some basic naval
architecture ideas.

"Capsize screens do not not predict LPS and at best suggest initial
stability" means that they do not predict actual stability. Note:
ACTUAL. Let me say it again, ACTUAL.

Now, the number given by a screening calc. for a LIMITED RANGE of hull
shape *might* be proportional to initial stability does not mean that
the actual satbility is known and such a simple measure takes no account
of the change in shape of the submerged volume as the boat rolls. This
is a FACT and shows why the LPS cannt be given by a capsize screen type
calculation! That's why stability calculations were so tedious and involved.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:

Capsize screens do not not predict LPS and at best suggest initial
stability.

Totally wrong. The capsize screen actually is inversely proportional to simple indication of
initial stability.

Beam / (displacement / 64)0,33
So increased beam, ie greater initial stability, increases the capsize screen number and thus
indicates a lower LPOS.

You don't know a freakin' thing about boat design, do you?

Perhaps if you don't believe me, you might believe John Rousmaniere.
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...leid=sailne005

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Best entry level pocket cruiser

The navigator© wrote:

Let me help you with some basic naval
architecture ideas.

"Capsize screens do not not predict LPS and at best suggest initial
stability" means that they do not predict actual stability.

And it's incorrect. The capsize screen has NOTHING to do with 'initial stability.' Period. NOTHING
should be a concept you can understand.

Now, the number given by a screening calc. for a LIMITED RANGE of hull
shape *might* be proportional to initial stability

It is no such thing. Does 'turtled' suggest initial stibility to you? Did you bother to read the
article I gave the link to? Do actual facts ever make any impression on you?

does not mean that
the actual satbility is known and such a simple measure takes no account
of the change in shape of the submerged volume as the boat rolls. This
is a FACT and shows why the LPS cannt be given by a capsize screen type
calculation!

You're really really stretching hard to try and cover your tracks. Why can't you be a man and admit
you're wrong?

DSK

Best entry level pocket cruiser

The navigator© wrote:

So will you send a money order to a third party

Why should I when you lost your bet? If you persist, I will get some legal assistance local to you.
And what is the NZ law on internet slander? Do you want to find out?

or apologise?

Hows this:

eat ****, you jerk-off playtime pedant

DSK

Best entry level pocket cruiser

What is up with you? Are you mad? Don't you know anything?
Didn't you just say:

The capsize screen actually is inversely proportional to simple
indication of initial stability.

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:

Let me help you with some basic naval
architecture ideas.

"Capsize screens do not not predict LPS and at best suggest initial
stability" means that they do not predict actual stability.

And it's incorrect. The capsize screen has NOTHING to do with 'initial stability.' Period. NOTHING
should be a concept you can understand.

Then why did _you_ post:

"The capsize screen actually is inversely proportional to simple
indication of initial stability."

Seek medical help.

Bwhahahhahahahahaha
SPANK
Cheers MC