Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:46:57 GMT, JimC wrote:



Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.com...


.

It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within

the the hull,


in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going

vessels. And the


same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.



Tall ships had oversized outboards?

You have to be really drunk or really stupid to compare, in
any way, a Mac26 to a tall ship! Which is it, Jim?

SBV


Both the Mac 26M and most tall ships had internal ballast positioned in
lower portions of the hull. The fact that the Mac also has an outboard
is, of course, not relevant.

Incidentally, I crewed on a tall ship (the 1877 Elissa, docked in
Galveston) and gave tours explaining its operation and history.

Jim


Tall ships hulls are so different from a Mac26M that this is laughable. The
lower portions of a tall ship are much deeper in the water than the MAC26M
relative to the amount of structure and weight carried above the waterline. You
will also note that tall ships did not use water for ballast, because it is far
too light compared to stones, bricks and iron scrap, even when you take into
account the airspaces in piles of stone or scrap. Water ballast is the least
desirable.

CWM


The point is that ships have been using ballast in the lower portions of
their hulls (as does the Mac) for hundreds of years. Whether it's a tall
ship or short ship, a sailboat or power boat, water or permanent
ballast, the principle is the same. And most ocean-going vessels still
use ballast tanks for holding water in the lower portions of such
vessels. (That's what keeps those container vessels from tipping over.)

You say that the tall ships are deeper than a Mac. Still, both used or
use ballast positioned within the hull and below the waterline.

You say that tall ships didn't use water for ballast. Right you are. -
That came later (after marine design became more sophisticated). But
they did use ballast positioned in the lower portion of the hull, as
does the Mac.

You say that tall ships used stones, brick, etc., rather than water.
Nevertheless, the same principles apply.

You imply that water ballast is the least desirable. - In that case,
you should complement MacGregor for adding solid, permanent ballast to
the 26M in addition to water ballast. Of course, if they used only
permanent ballast, they would loose the advantages gained by using
water ballast that can be removed to lighten the boat during trailoring,
or for high-speed motoring, etc. And if they used only permanent
ballast, the boat would quickly sink to the bottom in the event the hull
was seriously compromised, as do most weighted-hull sailboats.

You say that tall ships are so different from the Mac that the
comparison is laughable. Nevertheless, the same principles apply. -
sails acting to power the vessel, keel acting to limit lateral movement,
and ballast, positioned below the waterline, to lower the center of mass
and prevent capsizing of the vessel and limit heeling.

Jim