Hey everybody, Jimbo has discovered what ballast is!

Did you use Google?

SV


"JimC" wrote in message
. com...



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