The navigator© wrote:


How long did you say that boat was again -didn't you say 8m?

I didn't say, you did.


Bzzzt

Doing an imitation of a fly again? Given your diet, I'm not surprised.


.... Thus the stabilitry screen can at
best provide an estimate of initial stability -as I said.

First of all, do you even know what you are talking about? I was talking about
the Capsize Screening Ratio, devised by a number of naval architects to give a
rough comparison of inverted stability or LPOS with only the boats basic
dimensions.

I suppose the people who inveneted have no idea what they did it for, or how it
works.



You're a loser whatever way I look at it.

That's because you're looking in a mirror.



The big issue is why do you
like posting misleading information?

Because you don't know WTF I'm talking about, so to you it's misleading.

BTW they just discovered the Earth isn't flat. You don't have to be scared of
sailing off the edge any more.

DSK

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


How long did you say that boat was again -didn't you say 8m?


I didn't say, you did.

No, I just gave the name of the boat, it was you who lied about the
length. Why not look her up in Google -you'll be astonished and embarrassed!

First of all, do you even know what you are talking about? I was talking about
the Capsize Screening Ratio, devised by a number of naval architects to give a
rough comparison of inverted stability or LPOS with only the boats basic
dimensions.

You mean the formula I just posted? Having given you it's theoretical
basis you must now surely accept that it is no more than a rough
nmeasure of the true initial stability. No matter what you say or think
the maths is simple and shows that I was correct.

Second, the LPS and inverted stability are two completely different
things. Such profound misconceptions on your part!

Doug, inverted stability is _not_ predicted by just the beam and
diplacement. If you accept that, then what does the capsize screen
really indicate?
(Hint: How about a rough indicator of stiffness?)

Have you heard of the metacentric radius and do you know how it might
related to beam and displacement?

Cheers MC

The navigator© wrote:


...No matter what you say or think
the maths is simple and shows that I was correct.

You're nuttier than Bubbles. At least he knows he's full of crap. You seem to think
that others should take you seriously.


Doug, inverted stability is _not_ predicted by just the beam and
diplacement.

I never said it was. First, you need to learn to read. Did you bother to read any of
the links I gave you explaining stability and the Capsize Screen?

Now, pay me the bet you lost and go away.

DSK

Why should I pay when I won the bet!

Cheers MC

?

Now, pay me the bet you lost and go away.

The navigator© wrote:

Why should I pay when I won the bet!

-sigh-

No, you did not.

You *still* haven't named a cruising sailboat in the same size range,
much less one in the same size range AND having greater LPOS. Vague
hints, bluster, and bald faced lies do not win bets.

DSK

You didn't like the boat I posted? It was less than 20' long!

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


Why should I pay when I won the bet!


-sigh-

No, you did not.

You *still* haven't named a cruising sailboat in the same size range,
much less one in the same size range AND having greater LPOS. Vague
hints, bluster, and bald faced lies do not win bets.

DSK

The navigator© wrote:

You didn't like the boat I posted? It was less than 20' long!

Great math, Navvie. 20 = 15

You'd have made a great engineer. Is that why you can't pay your lost
wager, you can't count that high?

DSK