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

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

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

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