Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Well certainly the inanities of the Dry Land Sailor never ceases.

Says the hypocrite, dry land sailor, himself. LOL!

How freaking DROLL!!!!

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

I used a salt water pressure system for years, as Wayne's suggests,
and found it a far more effective solution than a brush.

Stupid person, indeed. It makes no sense at all to use
hundreds of amperes in order to run high-pressure pump
in order to wash mud off anchor chain when anchor chain
is just not ever necessary.

One has a choice of anchorages. There is NEVER an instance
when one HAS to anchor on coral heads. As a matter of fact
it is stupid and irresponsible to anchor in coral areas.

The attitude that a sailor has a right to destroy coral
with chain needs to be challenged as it is not only
irresponsible but CRIMINAL.

Get a glue, asshole!

--
Sir Gregory

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:27:04 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote...
"Flying Pig" wrote:

Well, this is 3rd-hand, but still very interesting!

http://raindogps34.wordpress.com/201...hain-scrubber/

Interesting? LOL! More like stupid. So stupid that I was inclined
to add a comment to that effect. Using an all-chain rode is tantamount
to using hemp lines and cotton sails. Duh! Hey, folks it's the 21st
century. Get with the program and lose the chain.

More advise from the dry land sailor.

Says the wannabe who lives ashore and keeps a motor yacht at
the Bangkok dock. Typical lubber pretending to be that which
he is not.


As I said many years ago, I'm here and you never left.

You might have a look at the majority of the world cruising boats as a
large number of them do carry an all chain rode.....

Because they are dumb asses who don't bother keeping up with the
times, who don't mind a bow-down yacht due to half a ton of chain
in the chain locker, who don't mind the hobby-horse pitching caused
by weight on the ends of a yacht. Stupid people who will never learn.


Silly boy. Most cruising people don't sail such a tiny boat that it
can't carry any cargo. My last sail boat carried more than, "your
fabled 1/2 ton, of water. In fact, more weight in water then in anchor
chain.

If you ask someone who has actually done a lot of cruising they might
even tell you why.

Doubtful as one can ALWAYS choose an anchorage where the dreaded
coral heads that chafe nylon rodes through don't exist. Duh!


ALWAYS? Alas, your lack of knowledge is distressingly evident.


So, in lieu of choosing a suitable anchorage these fools attempt
to "brute force" themselves into unsuitable anchorages where they
destroy coral. Yah right, real smart. Really really environmentally
responsible!

I really hate to destroy your fantasy but in much of the tropical
waters in Asia coral is everywhere. Your fantasy of a lovely coral
reef that one must protect is just that.

Unfortunately , cuddling up with the SAILING magazine and your boy
friend doesn't make you a sailor.

No Cuddles, Skip has far more sailing experience than you. While
you've huddled there in S. Florida playing "hide the salami" with the
local boys, Skip has been out there sailing here and there.

--
Cheers,

Brice

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:32:28 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

I used a salt water pressure system for years, as Wayne's suggests,
and found it a far more effective solution than a brush.

Stupid person, indeed. It makes no sense at all to use
hundreds of amperes in order to run high-pressure pump
in order to wash mud off anchor chain when anchor chain
is just not ever necessary.

You do go on, don't you. High pressure pump? A simply 12 volt water
pump. About $100, most places.

One has a choice of anchorages. There is NEVER an instance
when one HAS to anchor on coral heads. As a matter of fact
it is stupid and irresponsible to anchor in coral areas.

Why do you say that? Nearly every bay in S.W. Thailand has coral in
it. Some times a great deal more then expected :-(

The attitude that a sailor has a right to destroy coral
with chain needs to be challenged as it is not only
irresponsible but CRIMINAL.

Get a glue, asshole!

You must come from a place where coral is rare. Here it is as common
as dirt.
--
Cheers,

Brice

OT, but Neal started it:


Because they are dumb asses who don't bother keeping up with the
times, who don't mind a bow-down yacht due to half a ton of chain
in the chain locker, who don't mind the hobby-horse pitching caused
by weight on the ends of a yacht. Stupid people who will never learn.

I used to have a high opinion of your skills, but it's obvious you've never
considered an open-web flywheel, or a golf club, for that matter.

Weight at the ends of the relatively-linear mass inhibits motion, as it
takes much more effort to get it moving. Granted, it continues to move more
than it would if all the mass were centered - but this same continuation of
inertia is why the reverse motion will be damped unless the period just
happens to be perfect, which is unlikely - but if all the mass is centered,
rotational effort is eased, making shifting back and forth between up and
down in the ends in the vertical perspective (hobbyhorsing) much easier.

As to the all-chain vs nylon, if the bottom is mucky, your lightweight rode
will carry a lot of gunk up as well, and this device would do the same
cleaning job on IT. If you're in clean sand, likely either rode would not
need much attention...

L8R

Skip


--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

The Society for the Preservation of Tithesis commends your ebriated
and scrutible use of delible and defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
and couth. We are gruntled and consolate that you have the ertia and
eptitude to choose such putably pensible tithesis, which we parage.

Stamp out Sesquipedalianism

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:29:06 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

One has a choice of anchorages. There is NEVER an instance
when one HAS to anchor on coral heads. As a matter of fact
it is stupid and irresponsible to anchor in coral areas.

Why do you say that? Nearly every bay in S.W. Thailand has coral in
it. Some times a great deal more then expected :-(

===

There are plenty of good reasons for using a chain rode other than
coral risk, and since virtually all *serious* cruisers use chain, they
must know something that our hero does not.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:29:06 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

One has a choice of anchorages. There is NEVER an instance
when one HAS to anchor on coral heads. As a matter of fact
it is stupid and irresponsible to anchor in coral areas.

Why do you say that? Nearly every bay in S.W. Thailand has coral in
it. Some times a great deal more then expected :-(

===

There are plenty of good reasons for using a chain rode other than
coral risk, and since virtually all *serious* cruisers use chain, they
must know something that our hero does not.


They only know what they read in magazines. They use roll-up sails
for the same reason - because it's a fad. They think it looks
cool. Wrong, it looks stupid as hell and it breaks down way too
often.

All-chain rodes are just as STUPID for cruising yachts. Modern
anchors hold just fine with just a short length of chain attached
to a nylon rode. Modern windlasses handle nylon line just fine.
Chain gypsies can take a finer off in a hurry. Can and do!

The weight of chain alone makes it stupid to use. Why not
use sails made from stainless steel mesh. They would sure
never blow out in strong winds. Another stupid suggestion, huh?
Who needs all that extra weight aloft. It would make the yacht
too tender and it would negate ballast weight.

Bow lockers full of heavy chain cause a yacht to hobby horse.
One needs to keep the ends of the boat as light as possible
so the bow easily rises on the waves/chop/swell instead of
plowing through making for a wet ride. Putting weight on the
ends of a yacht causes a bad ride.

--
Sir Gregory

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:53:31 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:29:06 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

One has a choice of anchorages. There is NEVER an instance
when one HAS to anchor on coral heads. As a matter of fact
it is stupid and irresponsible to anchor in coral areas.

Why do you say that? Nearly every bay in S.W. Thailand has coral in
it. Some times a great deal more then expected :-(

===

There are plenty of good reasons for using a chain rode other than
coral risk, and since virtually all *serious* cruisers use chain, they
must know something that our hero does not.


They only know what they read in magazines. They use roll-up sails
for the same reason - because it's a fad. They think it looks
cool. Wrong, it looks stupid as hell and it breaks down way too
often.

Well, if you are correct then nearly every cruiser in the world is
wrong as I can't remember when I last saw a cruising boat that didn't
have a roller furling jib.

Unfortunately, as you have never cruised, you don't know that and so
you flaunt your ignorance for all to see.

You rather remind me of the old joke about the crowds watching the
army parading down Broadway. One woman says, "Oooo look at that, they
are all out of step except my Johnny.

All-chain rodes are just as STUPID for cruising yachts. Modern
anchors hold just fine with just a short length of chain attached
to a nylon rode. Modern windlasses handle nylon line just fine.
Chain gypsies can take a finer off in a hurry. Can and do!

The weight of chain alone makes it stupid to use. Why not
use sails made from stainless steel mesh. They would sure
never blow out in strong winds. Another stupid suggestion, huh?
Who needs all that extra weight aloft. It would make the yacht
too tender and it would negate ballast weight.


No, actually the advantage that chain has is that it is heavy. If
weight is not an advantage than one could be quite happy with a light
- say one ounce - anchor.

But of course, if one has never been to sea one doesn't know this.

Bow lockers full of heavy chain cause a yacht to hobby horse.
One needs to keep the ends of the boat as light as possible
so the bow easily rises on the waves/chop/swell instead of
plowing through making for a wet ride. Putting weight on the
ends of a yacht causes a bad ride.

Again you display your ignorance for all to see. If one carries a
large weight, relative to the boat's size and weight, one simply
locates the chain locker in the bilges of the boat. Added ballast you
see.

But, as I've mentioned, in most cruising boat the weight of the chain
rode is negligible.
--
Cheers,

Brice

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:59:55 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:53:31 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:29:06 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

One has a choice of anchorages. There is NEVER an instance
when one HAS to anchor on coral heads. As a matter of fact
it is stupid and irresponsible to anchor in coral areas.

Why do you say that? Nearly every bay in S.W. Thailand has coral in
it. Some times a great deal more then expected :-(

===

There are plenty of good reasons for using a chain rode other than
coral risk, and since virtually all *serious* cruisers use chain, they
must know something that our hero does not.


They only know what they read in magazines. They use roll-up sails
for the same reason - because it's a fad. They think it looks
cool. Wrong, it looks stupid as hell and it breaks down way too
often.

Well, if you are correct then nearly every cruiser in the world is
wrong as I can't remember when I last saw a cruising boat that didn't
have a roller furling jib.

That's because they are suckers for adverts that push that
expensive, failure-prone crap. It makes my point.

Unfortunately, as you have never cruised, you don't know that and so
you flaunt your ignorance for all to see.

I've done plenty of cruising and I STILL cruise.

You rather remind me of the old joke about the crowds watching the
army parading down Broadway. One woman says, "Oooo look at that, they
are all out of step except my Johnny.

She could be right provided she knows the beat. In like manner
I AM right because I don't fall for advertising the sole purpose
of which is to sell product - the more expensive the better,
never mind how stupid it really is.

It wasn't all that long ago that cruising under sail didn't
display a sycophant slavery to stupid and extraneous, not to
mention, downright dangerous products.

All-chain rodes are just as STUPID for cruising yachts. Modern
anchors hold just fine with just a short length of chain attached
to a nylon rode. Modern windlasses handle nylon line just fine.
Chain gypsies can take a finer off in a hurry. Can and do!

The weight of chain alone makes it stupid to use. Why not
use sails made from stainless steel mesh. They would sure
never blow out in strong winds. Another stupid suggestion, huh?
Who needs all that extra weight aloft. It would make the yacht
too tender and it would negate ballast weight.


No, actually the advantage that chain has is that it is heavy. If
weight is not an advantage than one could be quite happy with a light
- say one ounce - anchor.

Duh, the anchor itself does the holding - not the chain that would
drag itself merrily along without the anchor. It is so very environ-
mentally irresponsible to use an all-chain rode. It destroys coral,
fish habitat, mollusks and mollusk habitat. It dredges up sea grass.
Hundreds of square feet of productive bottom is destroyed by a
heavy chain dragging back and forth, back and forth. And this by
hypocrite folks who claim to love the sea. Well, I have a clue for
you. The sea bottom is part of the sea and you don't seem to care
one bit about destroying large quantities of it with no real reason
for doing so other than some stupid all-chain rode fetish.

But of course, if one has never been to sea one doesn't know this.

Wrong again, dock boi!

Bow lockers full of heavy chain cause a yacht to hobby horse.
One needs to keep the ends of the boat as light as possible
so the bow easily rises on the waves/chop/swell instead of
plowing through making for a wet ride. Putting weight on the
ends of a yacht causes a bad ride.

Again you display your ignorance for all to see. If one carries a
large weight, relative to the boat's size and weight, one simply
locates the chain locker in the bilges of the boat. Added ballast you
see.

In the bilges in the center is the best place for any weight that is
NECESSARY to carry. But, anchor chain is totally unnecessary as modern
synthetics are superior in every way.

But, as I've mentioned, in most cruising boat the weight of the chain
rode is negligible.

Not when it's on the bow as in a bow locker which is where most all
modern boats and many older boat store the chain.

The bow rises less easily to wave action because of it so it tends
to plow through them which slows the entire vessel and causes a wetter
ride.

--
Sir Gregory

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:57:47 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:59:55 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:53:31 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:29:06 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

One has a choice of anchorages. There is NEVER an instance
when one HAS to anchor on coral heads. As a matter of fact
it is stupid and irresponsible to anchor in coral areas.

Why do you say that? Nearly every bay in S.W. Thailand has coral in
it. Some times a great deal more then expected :-(

===

There are plenty of good reasons for using a chain rode other than
coral risk, and since virtually all *serious* cruisers use chain, they
must know something that our hero does not.


They only know what they read in magazines. They use roll-up sails
for the same reason - because it's a fad. They think it looks
cool. Wrong, it looks stupid as hell and it breaks down way too
often.

Well, if you are correct then nearly every cruiser in the world is
wrong as I can't remember when I last saw a cruising boat that didn't
have a roller furling jib.

That's because they are suckers for adverts that push that
expensive, failure-prone crap. It makes my point.


I did a casual count of the boats in the marina and 214 of 280 boats
are flaunting roller furling. That is (disregarding that some are
power boats). Some 76.5 percent. And.... the majority of these boats
crossed an ocean to get here so apparently the bulk of the cruising
sailors men(and women) use roller furling.

Which makes you remarks simply additional evidence of your lack of
knowledge about cruising sail boats.


Unfortunately, as you have never cruised, you don't know that and so
you flaunt your ignorance for all to see.

I've done plenty of cruising and I STILL cruise.

Yes, we know. Everyone has read your epic account of your intrepid
cruise down to the mouth of the bay and your night spent anchored on
the mud bank and the equally thrilling story of your voyage back to
your mooring.

You rather remind me of the old joke about the crowds watching the
army parading down Broadway. One woman says, "Oooo look at that, they
are all out of step except my Johnny.

She could be right provided she knows the beat. In like manner
I AM right because I don't fall for advertising the sole purpose
of which is to sell product - the more expensive the better,
never mind how stupid it really is.

It wasn't all that long ago that cruising under sail didn't
display a sycophant slavery to stupid and extraneous, not to
mention, downright dangerous products.

Right? The roller furling that you bleat about was in use sometime
before 1907 when it was patented. It is said that by 1940 nearly every
yacht in England was equipped with one.

Additional evidence, if it is needed, that Capt. Neil doesn't know
what he is talking about.

And I might add, yes, I have cruised on one of the minimal boats that
you seem to be so excitedly about. A 28 ft. gaff rigged sloop, two
head sails so I guess the modern term is "cutter" although the people
that built it thought it was a sloop. The bowsprit was sticking 5 feet
out in front and the end of the boom was 5 feet behind us. No motor,
cotton sails and real oil skins. Navigation by Texaco road map and a
hand held compass.

Every time I hear someone raving about "the good old days" I'm
reminded of what the old Maine lobster fisherman said when I asked him
"were the good old days really that good?".

He replied, "By gorry, you get down the mouth of the bay and the wind
dies and you got to row her home against the tide you won't talk about
the good old days".

All-chain rodes are just as STUPID for cruising yachts. Modern
anchors hold just fine with just a short length of chain attached
to a nylon rode. Modern windlasses handle nylon line just fine.
Chain gypsies can take a finer off in a hurry. Can and do!

The weight of chain alone makes it stupid to use. Why not
use sails made from stainless steel mesh. They would sure
never blow out in strong winds. Another stupid suggestion, huh?
Who needs all that extra weight aloft. It would make the yacht
too tender and it would negate ballast weight.


No, actually the advantage that chain has is that it is heavy. If
weight is not an advantage than one could be quite happy with a light
- say one ounce - anchor.

Duh, the anchor itself does the holding - not the chain that would
drag itself merrily along without the anchor.

Actually the chain along with its other advantages is heavy. You see
all anchors depend on the shank being more or less parallel with the
sea bed - dangle an anchor vertically and see how much it holds - and
guess what? All that heavy chain holds the anchor shank down so it
bites in.

Even those who advocate a rope rode add the caveat that one needs at
least one boat length of chain between the anchor and the rope.
About the only folks who don't insist on chain is the dinghy people.

Lord God man! But you insist on making a fool out of yourself.

It is so very environ-
mentally irresponsible to use an all-chain rode. It destroys coral,
fish habitat, mollusks and mollusk habitat. It dredges up sea grass.
Hundreds of square feet of productive bottom is destroyed by a
heavy chain dragging back and forth, back and forth. And this by
hypocrite folks who claim to love the sea. Well, I have a clue for
you. The sea bottom is part of the sea and you don't seem to care
one bit about destroying large quantities of it with no real reason
for doing so other than some stupid all-chain rode fetish.

But of course, if one has never been to sea one doesn't know this.

Wrong again, dock boi!


You are certainly correct. I even mentioned your epic voyage to the
mud bank and back.

Although I don't know too many boaters who'd call that cruising, but
whatever rocks your boat, as they say.

Bow lockers full of heavy chain cause a yacht to hobby horse.
One needs to keep the ends of the boat as light as possible
so the bow easily rises on the waves/chop/swell instead of
plowing through making for a wet ride. Putting weight on the
ends of a yacht causes a bad ride.

Again you display your ignorance for all to see. If one carries a
large weight, relative to the boat's size and weight, one simply
locates the chain locker in the bilges of the boat. Added ballast you
see.

In the bilges in the center is the best place for any weight that is
NECESSARY to carry. But, anchor chain is totally unnecessary as modern
synthetics are superior in every way.

But, as I've mentioned, in most cruising boat the weight of the chain
rode is negligible.

Not when it's on the bow as in a bow locker which is where most all
modern boats and many older boat store the chain.


Actually, if the boat is designed by a competent boat designer the
relatively heavy loads will be lower down. But if the boat weighs, say
20,000 pounds empty the addition of an anchor chain is difficult to
notice. The ballast alone was about 6,000 lbs :-( and 300 ft of 3/8"
chain is about 500 lbs.


The bow rises less easily to wave action because of it so it tends
to plow through them which slows the entire vessel and causes a wetter
ride.

Yes, yes. It seems perfectly correct..... Except that I sailed my boat
with full tanks and with partially empty tanks and couldn't really
tell the difference in how it reacted to waves. And the weight of
water difference was more then the weight of the anchor chain I had
aboard.

No Nealy, the more you talk the more it becomes evident that you
really, really, don't know what you are talking about.

--
Cheers,

Bruce
(invalid=gmail)