The navigator© wrote:

All other things being constant, lift and drag rise in proportion mister
sail expert.

For the airfoil, yes. The drag on everything rises exponentially with no commensurate
increase in lift. This is why, in high winds, boats are sometimes difficult to get through
stays tacking.



.... You don't fool me mister.

Why would I try to fool a fool?

... Try doing
some reading before you pass on your "advice" to others.

So your expertise is based on reading only? And not much of that, judging by your
statements.


The navigator© wrote:

Nah, I'm waiting for your cheque Doug -are you going to pay me?

You are the one who owes me, remember? It would be a shame if you had to sell your boat,
though. However the debt will stay on the ledger.

DSK

Shall we contact the designer to show how stupid you are? 180 degree LPS?

Bwhahahahhahaha

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


All other things being constant, lift and drag rise in proportion mister
sail expert.


For the airfoil, yes. The drag on everything rises exponentially with no commensurate
increase in lift. This is why, in high winds, boats are sometimes difficult to get through
stays tacking.




.... You don't fool me mister.


Why would I try to fool a fool?


... Try doing
some reading before you pass on your "advice" to others.


So your expertise is based on reading only? And not much of that, judging by your
statements.


The navigator© wrote:


Nah, I'm waiting for your cheque Doug -are you going to pay me?


You are the one who owes me, remember? It would be a shame if you had to sell your boat,
though. However the debt will stay on the ledger.

DSK

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


All other things being constant, lift and drag rise in proportion mister
sail expert.


For the airfoil, yes. The drag on everything rises exponentially with no commensurate
increase in lift. This is why, in high winds, boats are sometimes difficult to get through
stays tacking.


So now the hull form become important? Bwhahahhahahaha.


.... You don't fool me mister.


Why would I try to fool a fool?

Wow! that's really clever Doug.



... Try doing
some reading before you pass on your "advice" to others.


So your expertise is based on reading only? And not much of that, judging by your
statements.


And what is your knowlege of stability based on Doug? Obviously not
reading (or formal education either)! Is it divine inspiration or just
your endless BS?


The navigator© wrote:


Nah, I'm waiting for your cheque Doug -are you going to pay me?


You are the one who owes me, remember? It would be a shame if you had to sell your boat,
though. However the debt will stay on the ledger.


When you lose a bet you are supposed to pay Doug. Since you do not even
have a clue about the limits of stability for that design (or even what
it is) why not just pay up like a gentleman and admit you were wrong (as
usual.) If you can't accept that you have no idea what you are talking
about, I'm perfectly happy to get 2 world famous naval architects and
expert witnesses in design legal cases to confirm that the Bolger Micro
does not have a higher limit of stability than any other craft -if you
will honor your bet.


Cheers MC

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

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