On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:41:10 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:27:30 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Rod McInnis" wrote ...

My, my, my but the things one can learn on a usenet group. Just
recently I learned that cruising catamaran sailboats are
unconditionally stable, that is stable under any and all
conditions.

Unfortunately, the unconditionally stable position is with the
mast pointed down.

Monohulls are unconditionally stable when sitting on the bottom.

Why does it usually seem that this subject is argued on an "either/or"
basis.
There are advantages to either approach. Is this really surprising to
anyone here?

I've been reluctant to enter this thread because of the significant
contribution from the lunatic fringe.

Still, for what it's worth:
if you define "unconditionally stable" as meaning "unconditionally
self righting from any start orientation while the structure is
intact", there are several well-known examples.
Perhaps the one that comes first to mind, is a trans-Atlantic rowboat.
This had buoyant sponsons at either gunwale, but more importantly,

I'd be willing to bet that those fully enclosed life boats you see
hanging off of freighters are also unconditionally stable.

Steve

I'd be willing to bet that those fully enclosed life boats you see
hanging off of freighters are also unconditionally stable.

Steve

so is a beachball, but the discussion was cruising catamarans.

know what this is steviie?

On 25 May 2004 02:35:14 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that those fully enclosed life boats you see
hanging off of freighters are also unconditionally stable.

so is a beachball, but the discussion was cruising catamarans.

know what this is steviie?

Please learn how to follow a thread. The part I responded to was about
trans-atlantic rowboats and other possibly unconditionally stable boats.
You snipped so much you forgot what the topic was.

Steve

Please learn how to follow a thread.

that's what I said, steveie. while you were wandering about in some deluded
fog about rowboats crossing the ocean, the rest of the thread was talking about
stupid statements made regarding the stability of cruising catamarans.

The part I responded to was about
trans-atlantic rowboats and other possibly unconditionally stable boats.
You snipped so much you forgot what the topic was.

Steve

On 25 May 2004 11:18:08 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

Please learn how to follow a thread.

that's what I said, steveie. while you were wandering about in some deluded
fog about rowboats crossing the ocean, the rest of the thread was talking about
stupid statements made regarding the stability of cruising catamarans.

Sorry, you're wrong again. If you actually knew how to follow a thread
you could tell that I didn't bring up the part about rowboats. I just
responded to it. Now go back into your fog.

Steve

you were obvilously waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over-served last night, steviee,
go sleep it off.

Please learn how to follow a thread.

that's what I said, steveie. while you were wandering about in some deluded
fog about rowboats crossing the ocean, the rest of the thread was talking
about
stupid statements made regarding the stability of cruising catamarans.

Sorry, you're wrong again. If you actually knew how to follow a thread
you could tell that I didn't bring up the part about rowboats. I just
responded to it. Now go back into your fog.

Steve

On 25 May 2004 15:02:36 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

you were obvilously waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over-served last night, steviee,
go sleep it off.

Please learn how to follow a thread.

that's what I said, steveie. while you were wandering about in some deluded
fog about rowboats crossing the ocean, the rest of the thread was talking
about
stupid statements made regarding the stability of cruising catamarans.

Sorry, you're wrong again. If you actually knew how to follow a thread
you could tell that I didn't bring up the part about rowboats. I just
responded to it. Now go back into your fog.

It definitely seems like the rehab you were on during your welcome
absense from the newsgroups didn't take. Time to try again.

Steve