DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


Yes, I'll accept any books you send in partial payment of your debt to
me.


I don't owe you anything except possibly a hiding, you welsher.


So, what an excellent example of the human race you are. First you BS
and then when called out and shown to the world to be a BS artist you
threaten me with a hiding? You should hang your head in shame in apologize.


Talking of geodesics, have you found out what one is yet


Considering that I have built them, probably yes.


How do you build a geometry term?


and why
they DON'T completely obstruct the interior of racing boats?


Of course, ones that don't have them.


So you still think some do?



bwhahhahaha


What an intelligent response. Did you learn that in your Junior Naval
Architecture course?

It's an appropriate response to your buffonery.


Cheers MC

The navigator© wrote:


So, what an excellent example of the human race you are.

Why yes. Thanks for noticing.

First you BS
and then when called out and shown to the world to be a BS artist you
threaten me with a hiding?

Actually, it's funny that you accuse me of being a BS artist. Just within the
last week you have:

- conveniently dropped the distinction between section & profile when
discussing aerodynamic shapes

- failed utterly to correlate factors of small boat seaworthiness, and name
some more seaworthy small boats.

Probably more that's worthy of being listed, but I don't read all your posts.
You are as big a waste of bandwidth as the Crapton.

DSK

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


So, what an excellent example of the human race you are.


Why yes. Thanks for noticing.


First you BS
and then when called out and shown to the world to be a BS artist you
threaten me with a hiding?


Actually, it's funny that you accuse me of being a BS artist. Just within the
last week you have:

- conveniently dropped the distinction between section & profile when
discussing aerodynamic shapes


I never used those terms so this a pure fabrication. This shows you
again to be a complete liar. You really are pathetic in your attempts to
dicredit me. So come on, post the evidence you liar.

- failed utterly to correlate factors of small boat seaworthiness, and name
some more seaworthy small boats.

"failed utterly to correlate factors of small boat seaworthiness" are
you really so demented? No one was either asked to correlate nor discuss
factors determining seaworthiness in detail. Your trouble is that you
are a such a little ignorant man. You very ignorant about yacht design
and meterials feel compelled to advise others. I correctly pointed out
that the B. Micro is not a suitable serious cruising vessel and when
even Bolger himself recognises this view you deny it. You even go so far
as to make up a ridiculous LPOS figure that is quite critical for
seaworthiness in sailing vessels (but not the only factor). I've called
you on it and have offered ways of establishng facts that you ignore.
So, now you are trying to weasel out of your bet by discrediting me. I
offered a design type that is more seaworthy (which you denied).

I'll guess that you are so pathetic in trying to cover your ignorance
and lies that you made the bit about sailing with the designer of the
cornish crabber. So, Doug when did you sail with the original designer
of the cornish crabber and where does he live? Would you like me to give
give him a call for you and see if he remembers sailing with Doug King
-how could he forget -someone with your 'knowlege' of design? I'll also
see what he thinks about his designs being less seaworthy that a Bolger
Micro?

Probably more that's worthy of being listed, but I don't read all your posts.
You are as big a waste of bandwidth as the Crapton.

You may think that but at least the record shows that I don't lie and
make things up all the time. What a nasty little piece of work you are.

Cheers MC

The navigator© wrote:

- conveniently dropped the distinction between section & profile when
discussing aerodynamic shapes


I never used those terms so this a pure fabrication. This shows you
again to be a complete liar. You really are pathetic in your attempts to
dicredit me. So come on, post the evidence you liar.

Nope, sad to say, it is quite true. Not only that, you began the discussion about
lift/drag ratios and relative developed power in light air, and then claimed it was
more important to reduce heeling moment.

Now (drum roll please) the bare facts, from the Google archive

From: DSK )
Subject: Hey simple!
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Date: 2003-11-28 04:27:51 PST


The navigator© wrote:

I wonder if our disagreement arises because your theories are based on
ideas originating from the "eliptical wing" and a desire to make the
main adopt an eliptical shape as far as camber is concerned (by making
the top fuller)?

Huh? AFAIK the elliptical wing is usually referred to profile, not section shape.

So, I can definitely say, no that's not it.


Increasing fullness also helps solve the roach support
problem -which is offset in modern sails with full length battens and
stiffer fabrics. Some sudies (e.g. here at Auckland) have shown this is
not correct for high aspect roachy mains where the camber (and lift)
should be reduced at the top of the sail to reduce heeling moment.

Hello? Why are you talking about 'reducing heeling moment' in light air?

In
the extreme case, negative (!) camber could improve performance by
reducing the heeling of the vessel..

Yes it could, but not in light air.

*** *** ***

There you have it folks. Yet another fine example of Navvie© losing his grip on his
own malarkey and attempting to change the subject. Happens every time he tries to
discuss real sailing... check the record.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Still working on it aren't you? If anyone rereads the posts they will
see that I was offering YOU a way of explaing YOUR ideas. Hence the
elliptical wing which I did not discuss.

But the real point is that you try to besmirch me yet again by saying
that I "conveniently dropped the distinction between section & profile
when discussing aerodynamic shapes" which is plainly a lie. There was no
convenience about it. You did not pick up and discuss elipitical
theories anyway. Furthermore I certainly did not use the terms "section
and profile" -as i said. So try to twist as you want but but you are
still a liar.

C'mon why don't you threaten me again with a hiding? Why not come here
and deliver it in person?

Cheers MC


DSK wrote:


The navigator© wrote:


- conveniently dropped the distinction between section & profile when
discussing aerodynamic shapes


I never used those terms so this a pure fabrication. This shows you
again to be a complete liar. You really are pathetic in your attempts to
dicredit me. So come on, post the evidence you liar.


Nope, sad to say, it is quite true. Not only that, you began the discussion about
lift/drag ratios and relative developed power in light air, and then claimed it was
more important to reduce heeling moment.

Now (drum roll please) the bare facts, from the Google archive

From: DSK )
Subject: Hey simple!
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Date: 2003-11-28 04:27:51 PST


The navigator© wrote:


I wonder if our disagreement arises because your theories are based on
ideas originating from the "eliptical wing" and a desire to make the
main adopt an eliptical shape as far as camber is concerned (by making
the top fuller)?


Huh? AFAIK the elliptical wing is usually referred to profile, not section shape.

So, I can definitely say, no that's not it.



Increasing fullness also helps solve the roach support
problem -which is offset in modern sails with full length battens and
stiffer fabrics. Some sudies (e.g. here at Auckland) have shown this is
not correct for high aspect roachy mains where the camber (and lift)
should be reduced at the top of the sail to reduce heeling moment.


Hello? Why are you talking about 'reducing heeling moment' in light air?


In
the extreme case, negative (!) camber could improve performance by
reducing the heeling of the vessel..


Yes it could, but not in light air.

*** *** ***

There you have it folks. Yet another fine example of Navvie© losing his grip on his
own malarkey and attempting to change the subject. Happens every time he tries to
discuss real sailing... check the record.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MC, have you implanted some Neal and Booby genes in yourself as some =
weird experiment? ala Isle of Dr. Moreau? Your strident and =
argumentative tone suggests all is not well in NZ.

--=20
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

NO I want my MONEY.

Cheers MC

katysails wrote:

MC, have you implanted some Neal and Booby genes in yourself as some weird experiment? ala Isle of Dr. Moreau? Your strident and argumentative tone suggests all is not well in NZ.