On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:36:14 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:18:01 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

On 8/17/2015 11:55 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:38:03 -0400, "Flying Pig" wrote:


Nylon rode is superior in every way. Lose the chain.


The catenary of the chain rode acts the same as the shock cushioning of
the nylon but in rocky or worse, coral / oyster areas, the chain is
abrasion resistant where the nylon isn't. If you aren't happy relying on
the catenary, then get a snubber.


More than shock absorbing the catenary actually decreases the angle
above horizontal that force is applied to the anchor stock and thus
effectively increasing the holding power of the anchor.


When it comes to basic concepts of physics you folks are
demonstrably woefully ignorant.

Your claim of a more *horizontal* pull on the anchor stock
is unsubstantiated and erroneous. Force on the stock is
comprised of vectors and not a single, one-way, one-time
force as you seem to be suggesting.

What tends to break out an anchor is more due to shock
forces rather than some variation in vertical forces.
Those shock forces are greater when using chain as chain
does not have the ability to stretch and mitigate those
shock forces. The cantenary argument is bogus as there
will come a time when there is enough wind and wave
action to pull the cantenary into straight line forces
which forces are unmitigated. Nylon rode transmits far
less force to the anchor as the stretch itself absorbs
those forces.

Get a clue already, people.

--
Sir Gregory

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:18:33 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:36:14 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:18:01 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

On 8/17/2015 11:55 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:38:03 -0400, "Flying Pig" wrote:


Nylon rode is superior in every way. Lose the chain.


The catenary of the chain rode acts the same as the shock cushioning of
the nylon but in rocky or worse, coral / oyster areas, the chain is
abrasion resistant where the nylon isn't. If you aren't happy relying on
the catenary, then get a snubber.


More than shock absorbing the catenary actually decreases the angle
above horizontal that force is applied to the anchor stock and thus
effectively increasing the holding power of the anchor.


When it comes to basic concepts of physics you folks are
demonstrably woefully ignorant.

Your claim of a more *horizontal* pull on the anchor stock
is unsubstantiated and erroneous. Force on the stock is
comprised of vectors and not a single, one-way, one-time
force as you seem to be suggesting.

What tends to break out an anchor is more due to shock
forces rather than some variation in vertical forces.
Those shock forces are greater when using chain as chain
does not have the ability to stretch and mitigate those
shock forces. The cantenary argument is bogus as there
will come a time when there is enough wind and wave
action to pull the cantenary into straight line forces
which forces are unmitigated. Nylon rode transmits far
less force to the anchor as the stretch itself absorbs
those forces.

Get a clue already, people.

My response would be "prove it!"

You see, there innumerable anchor tests, by reputable testing bodies,
that prove, yet again, that you simply do not know what you are
talking about.

Example: From BoatUS

"Chain, used alone or in combination with nylon line, offers great
benefits: It decreases the angle of pull on the anchor allowing it to
set and hold more effectively, it's unaffected by chafe from rocks or
sharp surfaces on the bottom, it helps to keep the boat from sailing
about in winds, its weight forms a curve that, because of the catenary
effect, helps to absorb shock loads in heavy weather, and, in the case
of all-chain rode, it may require less scope for the same holding
power as rope"

Example: From Boating

"Regardless of boat style, all anchoring systems should have a boat
length of stainless-steel or galvanized chain separating the rope and
the anchor. The chain prevents chafing and abrasion. Its weight also
keeps the anchor shank horizontal, allowing the flukes to better bite
the bottom."


Example: From Peter Smith, "Catenary & Scope In Anchor Rode: Anchor
Systems For Small Boats"

"This catenary has the convenient effect of lowering the effective
angle of pull on the anchor, which is the positive result we are
striving for. Clearly, the heavier the rode, the better this effect,
and the greater the pull will need to be to negate it (i.e. to pull
the rode straight). Hence, the lore is to use heavy chain behind the
anchor.

This way of doing things has been reinforced over thousands of years,
mostly with relatively large vessels, and has built a strong
tradition. "

Example: U.S. Navy

"Washington DC Technical Note No. CEL N-1581 July 1980) it was found
that the chain rode could produce up to two-thirds of the total
holding power of the Anchor System. "


Your problem seems to be that you either glory in your ability to
provide ridicules information as fact, or that you somehow feel that
if you say it, than it simply must be the truth. Either assertion is
false.

It might be noted that all of the above data is available free, if you
just look. You don't have to be a dumb ass.
--
Cheers,

Bruce

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:05:21 +0700, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:18:33 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:36:14 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:18:01 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

On 8/17/2015 11:55 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:38:03 -0400, "Flying Pig" wrote:


Nylon rode is superior in every way. Lose the chain.


The catenary of the chain rode acts the same as the shock cushioning of
the nylon but in rocky or worse, coral / oyster areas, the chain is
abrasion resistant where the nylon isn't. If you aren't happy relying on
the catenary, then get a snubber.


More than shock absorbing the catenary actually decreases the angle
above horizontal that force is applied to the anchor stock and thus
effectively increasing the holding power of the anchor.


When it comes to basic concepts of physics you folks are
demonstrably woefully ignorant.

Your claim of a more *horizontal* pull on the anchor stock
is unsubstantiated and erroneous. Force on the stock is
comprised of vectors and not a single, one-way, one-time
force as you seem to be suggesting.

What tends to break out an anchor is more due to shock
forces rather than some variation in vertical forces.
Those shock forces are greater when using chain as chain
does not have the ability to stretch and mitigate those
shock forces. The cantenary argument is bogus as there
will come a time when there is enough wind and wave
action to pull the cantenary into straight line forces
which forces are unmitigated. Nylon rode transmits far
less force to the anchor as the stretch itself absorbs
those forces.

Get a clue already, people.

My response would be "prove it!"

You see, there innumerable anchor tests, by reputable testing bodies,
that prove, yet again, that you simply do not know what you are
talking about.

And each and every one of them contains a fallacy or two . . .


Example: From BoatUS

"Chain, used alone or in combination with nylon line, offers great
benefits: It decreases the angle of pull on the anchor allowing it to
set and hold more effectively, it's unaffected by chafe from rocks or
sharp surfaces on the bottom, it helps to keep the boat from sailing
about in winds, its weight forms a curve that, because of the catenary
effect, helps to absorb shock loads in heavy weather, and, in the case
of all-chain rode, it may require less scope for the same holding
power as rope"

No mention of the not so great liabilities such as excessive weight,
rust, damage to the sea bottom and the life that dwells there.

As for a boat sailing about in a wind, this will not be the case
if one uses two anchors on nylon rodes combined with a short length
of SS chain (six feet is plenty). The weight causing a curve or
cantenary is not a benefit. It is simply a function of that excess
weight mentioned prior.

Over reliance on all chain and one anchor is stupid as two anchors
are always more secure than one.


Example: From Boating

"Regardless of boat style, all anchoring systems should have a boat
length of stainless-steel or galvanized chain separating the rope and
the anchor. The chain prevents chafing and abrasion. Its weight also
keeps the anchor shank horizontal, allowing the flukes to better bite
the bottom."

A boat length is overkill. Six to eight feet is plenty enough weight
and it keeps the scraping and damage to bottom and bottom life to
a minimum. Flukes? Flukes? OMG. What about modern patent anchors that
have no flues. Can you day dated information?

Example: From Peter Smith, "Catenary & Scope In Anchor Rode: Anchor
Systems For Small Boats"

"This catenary has the convenient effect of lowering the effective
angle of pull on the anchor, which is the positive result we are
striving for. Clearly, the heavier the rode, the better this effect,
and the greater the pull will need to be to negate it (i.e. to pull
the rode straight). Hence, the lore is to use heavy chain behind the
anchor.

This way of doing things has been reinforced over thousands of years,
mostly with relatively large vessels, and has built a strong
tradition. "

Thousands of years ago they used rocks. Should be go back to using
rocks? If the heavier the rode the better, they why not use four-inch
chain?

Example: U.S. Navy

"Washington DC Technical Note No. CEL N-1581 July 1980) it was found
that the chain rode could produce up to two-thirds of the total
holding power of the Anchor System. "

There is no such thing as a patent anchor in the Navy. They use
old fashioned, tons of weight anchors. The only way to weigh them
is using chain as they are so heavy it would soon break nylon rodes..

The holding power of patent anchors comes from their design and most
of them are relatively light weight. Some are even made of aluminum.
Their holding power comes from penetration and not from a heavy slug
of weight lying on the bottom.

Your problem seems to be that you either glory in your ability to
provide ridicules information as fact, or that you somehow feel that
if you say it, than it simply must be the truth. Either assertion is
false.

It might be noted that all of the above data is available free, if you
just look. You don't have to be a dumb ass.

Your problem is you view a small recreational yacht as a giant ship.

You and many others seem to think if a little is good, more is better
and too much is just right. So you pile on the systems to cope with
the too much. You pile on heavy windlasses, heavy battery banks heavy
motors and generators, heavy fuel tanks, ad nausea.

--
Sir Gregory

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:22:43 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:05:21 +0700, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:18:33 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:36:14 +0700, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:18:01 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

On 8/17/2015 11:55 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:38:03 -0400, "Flying Pig" wrote:


Nylon rode is superior in every way. Lose the chain.


The catenary of the chain rode acts the same as the shock cushioning of
the nylon but in rocky or worse, coral / oyster areas, the chain is
abrasion resistant where the nylon isn't. If you aren't happy relying on
the catenary, then get a snubber.


More than shock absorbing the catenary actually decreases the angle
above horizontal that force is applied to the anchor stock and thus
effectively increasing the holding power of the anchor.


When it comes to basic concepts of physics you folks are
demonstrably woefully ignorant.

Your claim of a more *horizontal* pull on the anchor stock
is unsubstantiated and erroneous. Force on the stock is
comprised of vectors and not a single, one-way, one-time
force as you seem to be suggesting.

What tends to break out an anchor is more due to shock
forces rather than some variation in vertical forces.
Those shock forces are greater when using chain as chain
does not have the ability to stretch and mitigate those
shock forces. The cantenary argument is bogus as there
will come a time when there is enough wind and wave
action to pull the cantenary into straight line forces
which forces are unmitigated. Nylon rode transmits far
less force to the anchor as the stretch itself absorbs
those forces.

Get a clue already, people.

My response would be "prove it!"

You see, there innumerable anchor tests, by reputable testing bodies,
that prove, yet again, that you simply do not know what you are
talking about.

And each and every one of them contains a fallacy or two . . .


Example: From BoatUS

"Chain, used alone or in combination with nylon line, offers great
benefits: It decreases the angle of pull on the anchor allowing it to
set and hold more effectively, it's unaffected by chafe from rocks or
sharp surfaces on the bottom, it helps to keep the boat from sailing
about in winds, its weight forms a curve that, because of the catenary
effect, helps to absorb shock loads in heavy weather, and, in the case
of all-chain rode, it may require less scope for the same holding
power as rope"

No mention of the not so great liabilities such as excessive weight,
rust, damage to the sea bottom and the life that dwells there.

As for a boat sailing about in a wind, this will not be the case
if one uses two anchors on nylon rodes combined with a short length
of SS chain (six feet is plenty). The weight causing a curve or
cantenary is not a benefit. It is simply a function of that excess
weight mentioned prior.

Over reliance on all chain and one anchor is stupid as two anchors
are always more secure than one.


Example: From Boating

"Regardless of boat style, all anchoring systems should have a boat
length of stainless-steel or galvanized chain separating the rope and
the anchor. The chain prevents chafing and abrasion. Its weight also
keeps the anchor shank horizontal, allowing the flukes to better bite
the bottom."

A boat length is overkill. Six to eight feet is plenty enough weight
and it keeps the scraping and damage to bottom and bottom life to
a minimum. Flukes? Flukes? OMG. What about modern patent anchors that
have no flues. Can you day dated information?

Example: From Peter Smith, "Catenary & Scope In Anchor Rode: Anchor
Systems For Small Boats"

"This catenary has the convenient effect of lowering the effective
angle of pull on the anchor, which is the positive result we are
striving for. Clearly, the heavier the rode, the better this effect,
and the greater the pull will need to be to negate it (i.e. to pull
the rode straight). Hence, the lore is to use heavy chain behind the
anchor.

This way of doing things has been reinforced over thousands of years,
mostly with relatively large vessels, and has built a strong
tradition. "

Thousands of years ago they used rocks. Should be go back to using
rocks? If the heavier the rode the better, they why not use four-inch
chain?

Example: U.S. Navy

"Washington DC Technical Note No. CEL N-1581 July 1980) it was found
that the chain rode could produce up to two-thirds of the total
holding power of the Anchor System. "

There is no such thing as a patent anchor in the Navy. They use
old fashioned, tons of weight anchors. The only way to weigh them
is using chain as they are so heavy it would soon break nylon rodes..

The holding power of patent anchors comes from their design and most
of them are relatively light weight. Some are even made of aluminum.
Their holding power comes from penetration and not from a heavy slug
of weight lying on the bottom.

Your problem seems to be that you either glory in your ability to
provide ridicules information as fact, or that you somehow feel that
if you say it, than it simply must be the truth. Either assertion is
false.

It might be noted that all of the above data is available free, if you
just look. You don't have to be a dumb ass.

Your problem is you view a small recreational yacht as a giant ship.

You and many others seem to think if a little is good, more is better
and too much is just right. So you pile on the systems to cope with
the too much. You pile on heavy windlasses, heavy battery banks heavy
motors and generators, heavy fuel tanks, ad nausea.

Ah yes, the voice of experience one supposes.

Given that you mention no authority for your arguments one can only
assume that your utterances are based on your many years of
experience. Perhaps you might entertain us with a history of your
sailing experiences which provided you with all this knowledge?
Perhaps a Whitbread or two? The transatlantic? Maybe an America's Cup?
Or even a Volvo? I have a friend that participated in two of those.

But certainly if not the racing world it must have been the cruising
mode, say an Atlantic crossing or two, maybe even a circumnavigations;
both capes one would expect.

No reason to be modest. Tell us, let us in on your vast breadth of
sailing experience.
--
Cheers,

Bruce

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:25:47 +0700, wrote:

trim


Ah yes, the voice of experience one supposes.

Given that you mention no authority for your arguments one can only
assume that your utterances are based on your many years of
experience. Perhaps you might entertain us with a history of your
sailing experiences which provided you with all this knowledge?
Perhaps a Whitbread or two? The transatlantic? Maybe an America's Cup?
Or even a Volvo? I have a friend that participated in two of those.

But certainly if not the racing world it must have been the cruising
mode, say an Atlantic crossing or two, maybe even a circumnavigations;
both capes one would expect.

No reason to be modest. Tell us, let us in on your vast breadth of
sailing experience.


Um, in case you never noticed, anchoring is rarely needed when
crossing oceans. It's only around the edges where anchors become
necessary. The more time one spends crossing oceans, the less one
has any use for anchors.

It's coastal cruisers like myself who are the experts at anchoring.
We do those edges. We do it day in and day out and we don't get a
good night's sleep unless we learn how to do it right.

Like I said, two anchors suitable for the conditions on the bottom.
Lay them out Bahamas-style which means a 90 to 120 degree angle
described by the two nylon rodes off the bow. The only chain that
is needed is a short length of stainless steel of six to eight feet
shackled to the anchor stock.

HTH

--
Sir Gregory

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:11:38 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:25:47 +0700, wrote:

trim


Ah yes, the voice of experience one supposes.

Given that you mention no authority for your arguments one can only
assume that your utterances are based on your many years of
experience. Perhaps you might entertain us with a history of your
sailing experiences which provided you with all this knowledge?
Perhaps a Whitbread or two? The transatlantic? Maybe an America's Cup?
Or even a Volvo? I have a friend that participated in two of those.

But certainly if not the racing world it must have been the cruising
mode, say an Atlantic crossing or two, maybe even a circumnavigations;
both capes one would expect.

No reason to be modest. Tell us, let us in on your vast breadth of
sailing experience.


Um, in case you never noticed, anchoring is rarely needed when
crossing oceans. It's only around the edges where anchors become
necessary. The more time one spends crossing oceans, the less one
has any use for anchors.

It's coastal cruisers like myself who are the experts at anchoring.
We do those edges. We do it day in and day out and we don't get a
good night's sleep unless we learn how to do it right.

Like I said, two anchors suitable for the conditions on the bottom.
Lay them out Bahamas-style which means a 90 to 120 degree angle
described by the two nylon rodes off the bow. The only chain that
is needed is a short length of stainless steel of six to eight feet
shackled to the anchor stock.

HTH

I see... very limited experience, note that the only voyage described
by the writer is his valiant cruse down the bay and return the next
morning to escape the sound of music, results in a very great
knowledge. It is astonishing how such limited experience can lead to
so much experience. One can only assume the substitution of a fevered
imagination for actual experience.

It might be interesting to consider that in more than ten years of
active cruising among a group of sailors who, to a great extent,
sailed at least 500 miles, and more frequently further, just to get
here, I have never, let me repeat that NEVER, seen anyone use the so
called "Bahamas-style" of two anchors. Never! And, I might add, that
in 20 years of observing the Bugis sailors, perhaps the last group to
have used commercial sailing ships, I never saw them using a two
anchor mooring.
--
Cheers,

Bruce

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:25:47 +0700, wrote:

But certainly if not the racing world it must have been the cruising
mode, say an Atlantic crossing or two, maybe even a circumnavigations;
both capes one would expect.

No reason to be modest. Tell us, let us in on your vast breadth of
sailing experience.

===


Even more relevant would be a couple of winters in the Caribbean
Islands where serious cruisers from all over the world hang out. I've
done it twice and can't recall seeing a single boat anchored on
anything but chain. The charter boats are all picking up moorings
these days, and under every mooring is nothing but chain. They were
losing too many boats previously.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:11:38 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

It's coastal cruisers like myself who are the experts at anchoring.
We do those edges. We do it day in and day out and we don't get a
good night's sleep unless we learn how to do it right.

===

I know experts and you are not among their midst.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:06:09 +0700, wrote:

It might be interesting to consider that in more than ten years of
active cruising among a group of sailors who, to a great extent,
sailed at least 500 miles, and more frequently further, just to get
here, I have never, let me repeat that NEVER, seen anyone use the so
called "Bahamas-style" of two anchors. Never! And, I might add, that
in 20 years of observing the Bugis sailors, perhaps the last group to
have used commercial sailing ships, I never saw them using a two
anchor mooring.

===

There's an old saying that two anchors are no substitute for a single
good one.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:51:23 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:06:09 +0700, wrote:

It might be interesting to consider that in more than ten years of
active cruising among a group of sailors who, to a great extent,
sailed at least 500 miles, and more frequently further, just to get
here, I have never, let me repeat that NEVER, seen anyone use the so
called "Bahamas-style" of two anchors. Never! And, I might add, that
in 20 years of observing the Bugis sailors, perhaps the last group to
have used commercial sailing ships, I never saw them using a two
anchor mooring.

===

There's an old saying that two anchors are no substitute for a single
good one.


There are lots of old sayings that are little more than
another anachronism.

The fact is if you don't want your boat tacking around
at anchor the best way to keep it from doing so is to
cause it to lie to two anchors. One anchor in simply
inadequate as the vessel will continue to tack around
even on a chain rode.

Personally, I'd rather lie with the bow directly to
the wind. There are several reasons:

1) halyards don't slap during the extremes of the swing,

2) windscoops work perfectly and don't flutter or collapse,

3) bow stays pointed directly into wind-generated waves
and ventilation through the house is facilitated and
available each and every minute.

4) chaffing is minimized

5) directional antennas stay directed

6) scrunching, grunching, jerking and snatching are
non existent and that most ridiculous and unseamanlike
of all devices - the anchor *snubber* - is eliminated.

So, you wannabes just go ahead and continue to use your
all-chain rodes as you will be the only ones suffering the
adverse consequences (ignorance penalty).

--
Sir Gregory