"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Ever seen an LPG explosion or its aftermath?

Yes - or at least I think so.

I saw a large puff of smoke appear from a 35-40ft yacht a couple of years
ago. I assumed that it was a gas explosion.

Regards



Donal
--

I saw a large puff of smoke appear from a 35-40ft yacht a couple of years
ago. I assumed that it was a gas explosion.

You sure it wasn't Neal's boat? It may have been dust and cat hair.

RB

Donals Dilemma wrote in message
...

A ****ing BIG one!

I've read your, and some other, responses. I'm willing to accept that the
costs of rescue are far greater for Australia than for the UK. Perhaps my
opinions don't apply to the Southern Ocean.


Regards


Donal
--

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

You're a complete idiot. You have no idea how big Australia's SAR zone
is. Some of it is so far away that the Navy has to take a fleet oiler
with them, or charter a deep ocean fishing boat. The fuel costs alone
exceed any collection of individuals' contributions.

As I said, if EPIRB's were restricted to people with insurance against
rescue costs and the rest of us took our chances, problem solved.

That is a possible solution that I could agree with. I wonder how much the
insurance premium would be?




Regards


Donal
--

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Here in NZ we have to get vessels inspected every 2 years for their
seaworthiness and without a CAT1 clearance the vessel is not allowed to
leave (if owned by a NZ resident). The inspection takes up to ~2 hours
and the inspector also questions the skipper on his seamanship (it helps
if you already have qualifications like Ocean yachtmaster or even
Coastal skipper) for it is also the application his knowledge that makes
the vessel seaworthy (or not).


Are you boasting about this??

No. Just stating facts FYI.


You have little men in peaked caps who have the authority to stop you
from
setting to sea because they dissapprove of your vessel?? What kind of
fascist dictatorship do you live in?


I think it's quite fair. The southern ocean is a big hostile place
Donal. Suicide is illegal too -does that make the UK a fascist
dictatorship?



In many cases vessel arrive here from
overseas which are patently unseaworthy and these days they are allowed
to leave -after a strong talking to by the inspector as to why their
vessels are unsuitable


... and what qualifications do these "inspectors" have? I bet that they
are
recruited from the educational system's failures.
I bet that they are paid a low salary, and they have a great pension
scheme.


The ones I've met are all ex professional mariner with ocean yachtmaster
examiner certs or equivalent. Most have circumnavigated under sail -or
at least crossed the pacific. All are (or were) boating education
instructors.


and what will likely happen to them in bad
conditions. For that reason, it would seem that many US and EU vessels
arrive but never leave.


...and I bet that an even greater number never even arrive! Why would
someone sail around the world to visit a country that paid idiots to
tell
the visitors that their craft were not seaworthy? Fer cryin' out loud,
if
you sail to NZ, then your boat *must* be seaworthy.


No it may not be think about it... From the very definition of the word
and that most people have never experienced a storm at sea.

When the real sailor thinks about his vessel he thinks about how she
will cope if hit by storm force winds in the open sea if he wishes to
call his vessel seaworthy. If the vessel is not seaworthy then it is
just a toy for amusement on nice fair wind days. The question is, to you
have a toy or a seaworthy vessel? How many people here even have a storm
jib?


Mind your own bloody business.

The real question is "Do you need some small minded civil servant to
tell
you if your vessel is seaworthy?".

I do NOT.

So you think it is?

Actually, I don't. I wouldn't choose to take her across the Atlantic.
However I would feel happy about taking her across Biscay. Go figure?

I often find it difficult to imagine the sailing conditions in different
parts of the world, so I have modified my opinions after reading the
responses in this thread. I still have a problem with civil servants
deciding whether my boat is fit, or not. However, I accept that providing
a rescue service over such a wide area is difficult - and expensive.


Regards


Donal
--

Peter Wiley wrote:

.... The toy fire extinguishers
most people have are a waste of space, they might snuff a cigarette
lighter on a good day but a spilt pan of fat that's flashed - probably
not.

Some of them are definitely toys, the smallest ones I have are dry chemical about
3kg and rated "8-10-12 A-B-C." I'm not sure what the numbers mean but they will put
out all three types of fire. I don't expect them to do more than put out a cupful of
fuel, and would hate like hell to have to clean the crud out of any electrical
components. We also carry three much bigger A-B-C rated dry chem extinguishers. I'd
prefer CO2 for electrical fires but don't want to have to remember which type I'm
grabbing when something catches fire.

Most people get the smallest cheapest fire extinguishers. Big mistake if you ever
need them. Anything that's not rated A-B-C is a waste of space.


OTOH the fire blankets are surprisingly (to me when I first used
one) effective on contained fires.

Yes and they totally prevent reflash. Thanks for mentioning them, I will get a
couple for our boat this weekend (scribbling on to-do list).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

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

It was probably an A4 starting up.

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

Ever seen an LPG explosion or its aftermath?


Yes - or at least I think so.

I saw a large puff of smoke appear from a 35-40ft yacht a couple of years
ago. I assumed that it was a gas explosion.

Regards



Donal
--

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